Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SUPREME COURT: PRIZE, &c., DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, 1939–44

Account ordered,
of the Receipts and Payments of the Accounting Officer of the Vote for the Supreme Court on behalf of the Admiralty Division in Prize for the period from 3rd September, 1939, to 31st March, 1944, with a Copy of a Letter from the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."— [Mr. Peake.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE

War Criminals (Right of Asylum)

Professor Savory: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any reply has yet been received from the Government of Eire to the representations of His Majesty's Government against the harbouring of war criminals.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, whether assurances have been received from the Government of Eire that in the event of war criminals landing in that country they will promptly hand them over to the Allies.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): The Eire Government have informed us that their attitude is as follows:—They state that, in their view, the right to grant asylum is not in question, and that they can give no assurance which would preclude them from exercising that right should justice, charity or the honour or interest of the nation so require. They

also refer to the absence of a comprehensive international code applicable to the matter, and to the lack of a generally recognised court or procedure for the judicial determination of individual cases. They go on to say that, on the other hand, since the present war began, it has been the uniform practice of the Eire Government to deny admission to all aliens whose presence would be at variance with the policy of neutrality, or detrimental to the interests of the Irish people, or inconsistent with the desire of the Irish people to avoid injury to the interests of friendly States, and that when such aliens land they are deported to their countries of origin as soon as possible. They state that it is not intended to alter this practice.
The United Kingdom Government, for their part, wish to make it clear that it would certainly, in the words used by the Eire Government, be "detrimental to the interests of the Irish people," were war criminals to be harboured in Eire.

Professor Savory: Have not all other neutral countries, including Spain and Argentina, given assurances to His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I am afraid I could not answer my hon. Friend without notice.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is Herr Hitler in Spain at the moment?

United Kingdom Representative's Office, Dublin (Union Jack)

Professor Savory: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, whether he will give instructions that the Union Jack shall in future be flown over the office of the United Kingdom representative in Dublin, seeing that the Sinn Fein flag is flown over the office of the High Commissioner for Eire in London and the swastika flag over the German Legation in Dublin.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: As the House is aware, it has not hitherto been the practice to fly a flag from the office of the United Kingdom representative in Dublin. The attitude adopted by the Eire Government towards the war and the fact that enemy representatives in Dublin are in a position to fly their national flags clearly raise special considerations in this case. My noble Friend, however, on re-examining the question, feels that these con-


siderations do not justify a departure from the normal practice obtaining in the Commonwealth. The Union Jack will accordingly be flown in future from the office of the United Kingdom representative on appropriate occasions.

Professor Savory: Has not the Union Jack always flown from the offices of all our representatives in the other Dominions?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: Yes, Sir; but, as I have pointed out, certain special considerations exist in this particular case.

Mr. Molson: What special considerations?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: The special considerations are the position of Eire as part of the British Commonwealth yet acting as a neutral. In any case, the flag is going to be flown.

Oral Answers to Questions — SASKATCHEWAN ELECTION (OVERSEAS TROOPS)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has any information as to the methods to be used by the Saskatchewan Government in the election by their troops in this country of one of their number to the Provincial Parliament.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I am informed that provision has been made, in a Saskatchewan Act of 1944, for the election to the Legislative Assembly of that Province of three members of the Canadian Armed Forces who were domiciled in Saskatchewan for 12 months before becoming members of such Forces. One member is to be elected by the Canadian Forces serving in Canada (excluding the Province of Saskatchewan), and in Newfoundland; one member by the Forces serving in countries bordering on the Mediterranean Sea, other than France; and one member by the Forces serving in Great Britain, Iceland, France, Belgium, Holland, and a few other countries. A returning officer has been appointed for each of the three areas. A copy of the Act and the Regulation made under it will be placed in the Library.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to see that when any reference is being made to the United Kingdom it is not only England that is mentioned?

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND FORCES (HOME LEAVE)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will arrange that Newfoundland Forces should have the same facilities for home leave as Canadian or other Dominion Forces.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: The Newfoundland Forces to which the hon. Member refers are units of the United Kingdom Forces, and as such are subject to the same leave conditions as United Kingdom troops. At the present moment members of the United Kingdom Forces are, where possible, being sent home after 4¾ years continuous overseas service. Only in very few cases have serving Newfoundlanders been away from home for as long as this, and the grant of home leave in these cases is now under consideration.

Mr. Hogg: Do I understand that, having taken over the administration of Newfoundland, we now proceed to make their inhabitants suffer from the same restrictions as people born in this country, instead of classing them as a Dominion?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: No, Sir; that is not the position. I understand that in the case of Canada, for example, the scheme is under consideration, but it has not been carried through yet. The position is exactly the same.

Mr. Hogg: Am I not right in saying that the Canadian and other Dominion Forces have home leave? Why should the Dominion of Newfoundland be treated differently from the other Dominions?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: They are not being treated differently from the others.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Utility Carpets (Price)

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade when production of British-made utility carpets will restart; and, in view of the high costs of production and the necessity of avoiding inflated prices, he will fix ceiling prices free of Purchase Tax.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): The production of carpets, which had fallen to a very low level, is now being gradually increased. I shall


fix ceiling prices for this new production, but Purchase Tax will continue to be payable.

Mr. Morrison: In view of the fact that these carpets are being undertaken only as utility lines, would it not have been much better to leave them free of Purchase Tax?

Mr. Dalton: That is a matter in which the Board of Trade is not primarily concerned: it is entirely a matter for the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has met me very well in the past over Purchase Tax concessions on utility goods, but these carpets are not, strictly speaking, utility productions at the present time. What we can do later, when we have increased production, will be a matter for consideration.

Children's Boots

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the scarcity of children's boots suitable for wet weather; and whether, in the interests of their health, he will increase the supply of small children's Wellington boots.

Mr. Dalton: Supplies of rubber are still very short; but I am glad to say that I was able to arrange for the production of a small quantity of children's Wellingtons to be restarted this summer.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that children's utility shoes now on sale are generally made of rubbishy material, that very high prices are charged for them, and that these shoes are quite unsuitable for children in the winter-time? I have seen some of them, and they are too bad.

Mr. Dalton: The Question relates to children's Wellingtons. With regard to other shoes, I have frequently told the House of the efforts that are being made to raise the standards of production, and I repeat, what I think my hon. Friend will have heard me say before, that every manufacturer has now to mark every pair of boots or shoes with his number, and if it is represented to me that any manufacturer persistently produces goods from shoddy material the necessary steps are taken.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will my right hon. Friend give particular attention to the complaints of mothers with young

families, that they find difficulty in getting children's shoes that will keep out the wet?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I am very anxious to do everything possible to see that children are well shod.

Bomb-Damage Repair Workers (Protective Clothing)

Colonel Viscount Suirdale: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the heavy work involved and the consequent damage to overalls and other clothing, which wear out very quickly on this type of work, he will arrange either for an extra issue of special coupons to workmen engaged on air-raid repairs in London, or alternatively, make a free issue of overalls from time to time.

Mr. Dalton: These workers receive the industrial supplement of 10 coupons, in addition to their existing ration. I have also made arrangements whereby employers may hold small pools of protective clothing, for loan to men working on particular jobs involving exceptionally dirty conditions.

Small Shopkeepers (Goods Quotas)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the difficulties being encountered by the small shopkeepers throughout the country in obtaining their quotas of goods for sale, he will state the Government's proposals to assist in overcoming these difficulties.

Mr. Dalton: As my hon. Friend will recall, I introduced two years ago "Fair Shares" schemes for the clothing, pottery and hollow-ware trades and appointed Committees, on which the small shopkeepers are represented, to supervise the arrangements. I am glad to say that these schemes have worked very smoothly and that very few complaints have been reported. If, however, my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any case where difficulty has arisen, I will look into it.

Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. Friend tell us anything at all about the small firms of paint makers who have had such a very raw deal; and is he aware of the unprecedentedly disastrous result of this bungling?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend read the "Daily Express"?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Minister aware that, in the main, small shopkeepers usually appear to have better stocks than the bigger stores; and is it not time to put an end to this nonsense that they are getting an unfair deal? They are serving the public in a very efficient manner, because of the equity with which the matter is being administered by the Board of Trade.

Mr. De la Bère: There is no evidence whatever of that situation.

Mr. Walkden: There is, in the shops.

Mr. De la Bère: No.

Steam Piping (Export Licence)

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Industrial Supplies Department of his department has refused an export licence to a Manchester firm to export steam piping for a textile mill in Brazil and have informed the firm that the U.S.A. have made themselves responsible for the export of all finished steel to the South American States; how many agreements of this kind have been made between this country and the U.S.A.; whether any reciprocal advantages are given to manufacturers in this country; and whether he will place a copy of each of these trade treaties in the Library of the House.

Mr. Dalton: Our own production of steel products is insufficient to meet our essential requirements and we have, therefore, had no surplus available for export to South America. We have had, for some time, to import steel products from the United States and, in so doing, to pay regard to the undertaking given in the White Paper of 10th September, 1941.

Mr. Maclean: Can the Minister give any statement with regard to the last part of the Question—whether he will place copies in the Library of the House?

Mr. Dalton: There are no documents relating to this matter beyond the White Paper of 10th September, 1941, to which I have referred my hon. Friend.

Sir Patrick Hannon: What progress is being made, in the relations between this country and the United States, with regard to South American trade? Is there a possibility of our losing our South American trade?

Mr. Dalton: I gave an answer to the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) on 28th September, in which I said that discussions have been proceeding with the United States authorities, regarding the replacement of the White Paper of September, 1941, as recent changes in the war situation had altered the background against which these questions must now be viewed, and I also said that I would make a further statement when I was able to do so. That covers wider ground.

Sir P. Hannon: May I ask the Minister whether he has read the statements issued by the American Bureau of Information every morning to hon. Members of this House; and does he not realise the careful planning that is in progress in the United States now, to seize practically the whole of our South American trade?

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that, while these discussions are taking place with the United States Government on the revision of the White Paper of 1941, we are, slowly but surely, losing a lot of trade?

Mr. Dalton: I think these matters must be viewed against the historical background of Lend-Lease. Lend-Lease has been an invaluable and indispensable contribution to our war effort, and it is only reasonable that any discussions for any change in these arrangements should take place in a spirit of mutual trust between ourselves and the United States. That is now going on.

Mr. Shinwell: Well, hurry up, then.

Books (Paper Allocation)

Mr. Graham White: asked the President of the Board of Trade the actual tonnage of paper which will be now available for the production of books under the recently announced increased allocation; and if he has been able to arrange for additional labour to be liberated to enable an increased output of books to be made.

Mr. Dalton: The total amount of paper allocated in the present four-monthly period for the production of books is 9,118 tons, an increase of 1,433 tons over the allocation in the last period. The Publishers' Association have informed me that the increase in their quotas will be largely used to produce longer runs, which are more economical of labour, and I am in


close touch with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, on the labour requirements of the industry.

Mr. Graham White: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the complete impossibility of meeting the urgent demand for books for educational purposes, both at home and abroad, he will do his utmost to give consideration to this matter, having regard to the "blackout" of learning that has taken place?

Mr. Dalton: There is a very substantial allocation for educational books, and I would like to see it larger, but, evidently, with regard to paper and labour required for printing, there are conditions of shortage due to the war effort, which my hon. Friend understands. We are doing our utmost, and, as a matter of fact, the production of books at the present time has increased as the result of this allocation, and is expected to increase still further.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is the Minister aware that I was informed yesterday that this paper cannot be fully used, unless bookbinders are released by the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Dalton: That is one of the matters on which I am in touch with my right hon. Friend.

Post-War Export Trade (Publications)

Sir George Schuster: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has obtained copies of the series of studies of Foreign Markets after the war issued in the U.S.A. by the Bureaù of Foreign and Domestic Commerce; whether he will have copies placed in the Library; and whether he will arrange for the publication, as a White Paper, in this country of the document "Economic Series, No. 39," dated September, 1944, entitled "Some Factors in Post-War Export Trade with the British Empire."

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I have received the series of studies to which my hon. Friend refers and I will gladly arrange for copies to be placed in the Library. The question of publishing in this country the document mentioned in the last part of the Question is under consideration. Meanwhile, I will arrange for a copy of this also to be placed in the Library.

Sir G. Schuster: Will the Minister consider publishing his own review, by his own Board of Trade, of matters of this

kind; and does he not think that it is very disquieting that if we want to get an up-to-date conspectus of British Empire trade, we have to go to a United States publication for it?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I think that we look at these matters from a somewhat different angle from that which America adopts. They look to one market, and we look to another. We shall publish, when paper is a little more plentiful, certain studies similar to those to which my hon. Friend referred.

Sir G. Schuster: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a date when these Matters will be published?

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend be quick?

Sir P. Hannon: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether studies of a similar character to those suggested by my hon. Friend's Question are in process in the British Empire to-day?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, that is so.

Business Names, Registration (Fee)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will agree to waive or reduce the fee charged under the Registration of Business Names Act, 1916, where a trader has to change his premises owing to enemy action.

Mr. Dalton: No fee is charged for a notification of change to a temporary address owing to enemy action.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRISTOL CHANNEL DOCKS (REPORT)

Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether His Majesty's Government has yet received a Report from the Welsh Reconstruction Council on the future of the Bristol Channel docks; what action it is proposed should be taken; and whether the Report will be published.

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): My Noble Friend the Minister of Reconstruction has received a letter on this subject from the Welsh Reconstruction Advisory Council, and he is in consultation with my Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport in regard to it. It is not proposed to publish this letter.

Sir A. Evans: Will the Minister consider setting up an impartial committee to inquire into this matter, as this suggestion has received the unanimous support and endorsement of the Welsh Parliamentary Party, composed of representatives of all political parties?

Sir W. Jowitt: I understand that this is one of the matters which the Minister of War Transport is considering.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Forces, India (Credits)

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the delay in getting through the credits of Service men returning from the Far East whereby hardship is caused; and whether he will investigate the system of credits from India to England and from England to India with a view to the improvement of administrative machinery.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): The delays, which have been largely due to the rapid expansion of the Army in India, have been under investigation for some time. As a result, there has been a great improvement and I hope that the remaining difficulties will soon be overcome.

Retired Officers (Pay)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Secretary of State for War whether regular officers who have qualified during the war for the maximum retired pay but who have continued to serve, are given the 25 per cent. increase granted to re-employed retired regular officers.

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I ask whether retiring officers who have continued to serve do not get an increased pension as a result of service; and if they do not, will the Minister reconsider the position, so that they can be put on the same basis as if they had retired just before the war?

Sir J. Grigg: Does my hon. Friend mean those officers placed on the supplementary list, because those who get the 25 per cent. increase, get it partly as compensation for being uprooted, and partly as compensation for the fact that they do not earn any increase of pension. They are already compensated.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the Minister consider the position of these officers who would have retired on a maximum pension, and who get no increased pension and no 25 per cent.?

Sir J. Grigg: I think they are in exactly the same position as those on the active list.

Women War Correspondents

Mr. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for War what discrimination is made between men and women war correspondents; and for what reasons women correspondents are not given the same measure of recognition and facilities as the male correspondents.

Sir J. Grigg: I have nothing at present to add to the replies I gave my hon. Friends the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 1st February, and the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) on 1st August, of which I will send my hon. Friend copies.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that the discontent in this matter is growing very considerably; and has he had any representations from organisations representing women journalists?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a woman in Cairo, about whom I gave him particulars, and who has been sending information to papers in this country, had, in order to do so—and she is a British woman—to become attached to the United States Forces as a war correspondent?

Sir J. Grigg: I have not yet received the full facts about this particular case, so I cannot answer that question.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the Minister aware that I gave them to him about 10 months ago?

Sir J. Grigg: I have forgotten about the case and will have to refresh my memory.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman gets it both ways.

Sir J. Grigg: Representations from two women's organisations have been received. As I explained in a supplementary answer on the last occasion when it was raised, there is no difference in treatment between women journalists attached to the British Forces and those attached to the Canadian and American Forces.


It is merely a question of a name, and if, as I said then, the women's organisations concerned merely want the name changed without any other change in their facilities —if that makes any difference to their satisfaction, I will gladly consider it.

Mr. Hynd: Are we to understand from that answer that the only difference is the name and that it is not a question of facilities given either in practice or in the number of women correspondents allowed?

Sir J. Grigg: That is my information.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is not ten months rather a long time for gestation, even for the War Office?

Sir J. Grigg: I was really trying to conceal the fact that I had forgotten about the particular case.

Discharged Personnel (Civilian Clothing)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that many of those who got their discharge before the recent order of fitting out for clothes, etc., feel they are entitled to receive some consideration as they were not adequately compensated at the time; and if he will give favourable consideration to these cases.

Wing-Commander Errington: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 5244027, ex-Sergeant F. B. Hussey, of the K.R.R.C., was discharged from the Army on 25th September, was suffering from bronchitis and has been refused a raincoat or overcoat; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the issue of overcoats to discharged soldiers shall not be refused merely on the grounds that they were discharged before 16th October, 1944.

Sir J. Grigg: These two Questions raise, in a slightly different form, the point of giving retrospective effect to the recent improvement in regard to civilian clothing given to soldiers on discharge. As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) on 3rd October it is not practicable to do this. Whatever date is fixed for the introduction of such an improvement, there are bound to be complaints from those who have been dealt with before the fixed date. On the particular point of ex-Sergeant Hussey, I am investigating the circumstances to see whether under the regulations then in force he could have

been given an overcoat, and will let my hon. and gallant Friend know the result in due course.

Mr. Tinker: Will my right hon. Friend follow up the question, as there is a lot of dissatisfaction among people who have not had the same treatment as others?

Sir J. Grigg: I have, I assure my hon. Friend, given it very serious consideration, but it is a dilemma which always arises after conditions are improved. The question of retrospection always arises. It is very rarely practicable and it always produces a crop of hard cases.

Wing-Commander Errington: Will my right hon. Friend consider the case of Sergeant Hussey, particularly in view of the fact that the man was actually suffering from bronchitis; and is he aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction at the way these men are treated?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend could have heard my answer, which I will repeat for him—
On the particular point of ex-Sergeant Hussey, I am investigating the circumstances to see whether under the regulations then in force he could have been given an overcoat, and will let my hon. and gallant Friend know the result in due course.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will be treading on very dangerous ground if he departs from the broad principle of the datum line already laid down?

Sir J. Grigg: That is my impression.

Chaplains (Church of Scotland)

Lieutenant-Commander Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of chaplains belonging to the Church of Scotland who are at present serving in the Royal Army Chaplains' Department.

Sir J. Grigg: I regret that it is not in the public interest to give figures of strengths of any part of the Army.

Lieutenant-Commander Hutchison: Surely there can be nothing wrong in giving statistics concerning a non-combatant branch?

Sir J. Grigg: Non-combatant branches are very closely allied with combatant branches and, anyhow, there is a formula relating the strength of chaplains to the strength of the Army.

Compassionate Leave

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) what is the total number of officers and other ranks, separately and men only, who applied for compassionate leave during 1943 and the first six months of 1944, respectively; and the percentage of requests granted in each case;
(2) what is the total number of officers and other ranks, separately and men only, who applied for compassionate leave or reversion during 1943 and the first six months of 1944, respectively, which involved the care and welfare of children due to the mother's death, illness, confinement or desertion; and the percentage of requests granted in each case.

Sir J. Grigg: Compassionate leave for troops in this country is granted by officers commanding units. There is no compassionate leave from abroad but if the circumstances justify it a man may be posted back to this country for compassionate reasons. Applications may be made either through the War Office or by the men abroad to the Commander-in-Chief of the theatre in which he is serving. We have no figures for local applications and I cannot therefore give the statistics my hon. Friend desires.

Mr. Lindsay: Can my right hon. Friend give any statistics relating to this matter?

Sir J. Grigg: I can give my hon. Friend this information. The total number of cases received by the War Office since January, 1943, is about 20,000, and even to classify all this would, I am told, take two clerks at least three weeks.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that great consideration and sympathy are shown by the War Office in cases such as are mentioned in the Question? At least, that is my experience.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War when he was made aware of the arrangements which had been made by the Commander-in-Chief Middle East with regard to the granting of compassionate leave.

Sir J. Grigg: It has all along been made clear that Commands overseas have full

discretion to return men and women to this country on compassionate grounds and the General Routine Order circulated with the reply I gave the hon. Member last week was issued in accordance with this policy. But its Appendix was in effect a reproduction of a table originally produced by the War Office and sent to Commands for guidance last April.

Miss Ward: Does my right hon. Friend not think it rather peculiar, in view of the fact that the War Office keep control over many unimportant matters, that they should not have known that this extraordinary new procedure was being undertaken?

Sir J. Grigg: We did know about it, but only as a matter of general interest, and from the visits of a considerable number of officers from this country to that theatre.

Repatriated Prisoners of War (Overseas Service)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Private W. Tinker, No. 7368178, was sent to Normandy nine months after he had been repatriated from a prisoner of war camp in Germany and has been serving with the B.L.A. as a medical orderly since July; how many other repatriated prisoners of war are serving with the B.L.A.; and whether it is the policy of his department that repatriated prisoners of war should be drafted for overseas service.

Sir J. Grigg: As I said in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Neal) on 24th May, protected personnel, for example, those in the Royal Army Medical Corps, may be employed in a theatre of war overseas if they are medically fit for such duties, provided they are not employed in a combatant capacity. This is in accordance with the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick. About 140 repatriated prisoners belonging to the R.A.M.C. have so far been sent overseas. None were sent as far as I know until they had completed six months' service in this country.

Mr. Gallacher: Surely the Minister will agree that we are not so far short of manpower in the Army that we should put these men through such a terrific psychological training and return them to the


fighting front again after the experiences they have been through? Is it not possible to find suitable employment for them in the Army here?

Sir J. Grigg: I can assure hon. Members that we have no reserves of man-power.

Field Survey Personnel (Leave)

Mr. T. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Dr. R. G. Moss, of a field survey company, R.E., C.M.F., has been abroad nearly four years in Libya, Syria, and now in Italy, and has had no leave of any description for 16 months; and will he endeavour to remedy this matter.

Sir J. Grigg: Under the present arrangements this man is not yet eligible for reversion to the Home Establishment. As to his local leave I have referred the matter to the Commander-in-Chief concerned.

Mr. Brooks: Is the Secretary of State aware that this man has been abroad four years? Surely, it is not usual to wait for 16 months without any leave at all. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman understand the feelings of the family in this matter?

Sir J. Grigg: As I say, I cannot, without referring the matter to the Commander-in-Chief, say what the actual facts are, and I have referred the matter to the Commander-in-Chief.

Mr. Brooks: How long will it be before we receive some information, as the family are very concerned about it?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot say.

Street Obstruction, London (Removal)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to remove the strong points in the streets of London as the one at the bottom of Kingsway obstructs the view of the pedestrians when they are crossing the road near the American house.

Sir J. Grigg: Orders have been given for the removal of this obstruction.

Mr. Loftus: Will the right hon. Gentleman authorise local authorities to remove the four-year-old obstructions still remaining on the roads?

Sir J. Grigg: That is a different question and perhaps my hon. Friend will put it on the Paper.

E.N.S.A. (Public Relations)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for War when the public relations committee of E.N.S.A. last met.

Sir J. Grigg: This is a question of internal E.N.S.A. administration about which I am not officially informed.

Sir J. Lucas: In view of the fact that this committee is supposed to meet once a month, and has not met for a year, would it not avoid such controversies as there are about E.N.S.A. in India—or the lack of it—if this committee did meet?

Sir J. Grigg: The publicity they give themselves has nothing to do with me; what I am concerned with is the amount of entertainment they provide.

Sir H. Williams: Surely a body in receipt of public funds, over which there is Ministerial control, must supply information if the Minister needs it?

Sir J. Grigg: Only in so far as the information is required in connection with the purposes for which they get the public funds.

A.T.S. Unit (Accommodation)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that A.T.S. personnel in anti-aircraft batteries are still sleeping under canvas on marshy ground at a place of which he has been informed; and if he will take immediate steps to transfer them to billets or provide hutments.

Sir J. Grigg: I regret that it is necessary for operational reasons for these auxiliaries to be located where they are. Huts are being provided for them as quickly as possible and meanwhile double tentage has been issued to protect them from the weather.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I visited these gun sites only yesterday afternoon, and it is quite incorrect to say that double tenting has been provided? They are still sleeping under single canvas—and very leaky canvas at that.

Sir J. Grigg: That is not the first time I have been given the lie direct by the hon. Member, and I will investigate that.

Hon. Members: Order.

Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, Is it proper for the Minister to say that a Private Member has given the lie direct?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the Minister's reply.

Sir H. Williams: The Minister said that it was the lie direct. Surely, Private Members are entitled to protection?

Mr. Thorne: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that I was expelled once for calling an hon. Member a liar?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a correct expression to use if it was used.

Hon Members: Withdraw.

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly withdraw it, if it is outside the Rules of Order, but the hon. Member flatly contradicted a statement which I had just made. As he did flatly contradict the statement, which I had made in perfect good faith, I said I would have to investigate it before I could reply.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I say that I am perfectly prepared to abide by the right hon. Gentleman's investigation of the facts on the spot, which I saw with my own eyes yesterday evening, if he will then come to this House next week and make a further statement?

Sir J. Grigg: I shall be perfectly prepared to tell the hon. Member the result of my investigation.

Roads (Closing)

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) why the trunk road, No. A22, was closed by the military, on Monday, 6th November, between two points, of which he has been informed;
(2) whether, as the main purpose for which Parliament granted powers to the military to close main public highways, namely the initial invasion of the mainland of Europe, is now accomplished, he will consider some modification of the relevant order, perhaps by restricting it to limited specific and necessary areas.

Sir J. Grigg: The powers to which my hon. Friend doubtless refers were not granted specifically for the preparations for the operations in North-West Europe.

The exercise of these powers is under constant review. Many roads have been re-opened and more will be re-opened as soon as possible. In the specific case to which my hon. Friend refers, the road was closed for about 1½ hours while a military training film was being made. This stretch of road was chosen because it was suitable and near where the troops taking part were stationed and because it was thought that its closing would cause the least inconvenience to the general public. I might add that the consent of the police and the Ministry of War transport was obtained before this road was closed on this occasion.

Mr. Etherton: Will the right hon. Gentleman watch this matter of the closing of roads by the military on what sometimes appear to be somewhat capricious grounds, to see whether, at the earliest possible moment, this power could not be returned to the civil authority?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly do the converse of what the hon. Member suggests in this case—I will try my utmost to see that the roads closed are re-opened as quickly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME GUARD

Injured Personnel (Compensation)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider extending the provisions of Home Guard Circular No. 51 of 28th June, 1944, to enable members of the Home Guard who have sustained injuries when proceeding to and from home to the place of Home Guard duty prior to 1st April, 1944, to claim disablement allowance.

Sir J. Grigg: Members of the Home Guard who sustained injuries while proceeding to or from duty prior to 1st April, 1944, are eligible to claim disablement allowance or pension in respect of any current disablement they may have. As was made clear in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson) on 30th March they are not, however, eligible to claim payments in respect of periods of disablement prior to 1st April, 1944. The decision to admit claims of this nature took effect from that date, and I regret that I am not prepared to


allow at this stage payments in respect of previous periods which may have long since passed.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: As there are quite a number of very hard cases, will not my right hon. Friend reconsider that, although the disablement is no longer continuing, they have suffered considerable hardship and loss of pay?

Sir J. Grigg: I understand that this concession was the result of considerable discussion, and it is, again, one of those cases where retrospection is impracticable.

Uniforms (Civilian Use)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is now permissible for members of the Home Guard to have their khaki greatcoats and trousers dyed for use as civilian attire.

Sir J. Grigg: I am glad of this opportunity to clear any misunderstanding there may be about the present position. The instructions so far issued cover the standing down of the Home Guard, not its disbandment. Members are therefore liable to recall if the need arises. The instructions for standing down the Home Guard make it clear that should the Home Guard be recalled for active duty, members will report for duty complete with the items of clothing and equipment which they have been allowed to retain. It will not be until the actual disbandment of the Home Guard that members will be allowed to dispose of, or have their khaki greatcoats, trousers, etc., dyed for use as civilian clothes.

Mr. Kirby: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, which will give great satisfaction to the Home Guard, and a lead as to what they may do with these garments?

Sir J. Grigg: I hope it will give satisfaction, and I hope it will make the position clear. I noticed in one of the London papers this morning, in the women's column, a recipe for turning a Home Guard coat into a winter coat for a boy, and this in spite of the fact that the representatives of that newspaper have been told several times that the Home Guard are not disbanded.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Could not the right hon. Gentleman give a broadcast

or something of that kind, making a full general statement to the Home Guard, instead of dealing with the matter in this piecemeal way, which is causing very great embarrassment and is inequitable to many men?

Sir J. Grigg: I must take exception to the hon. Member's suggestion that these instructions have been issued in a piecemeal way. They have not. They were issued in a comprehensive way but, for reasons which I cannot fathom, they have been misunderstood all over the country. Having re-read the text of the instructions, I cannot find any warrant for misunderstanding them.

Mr. Kirby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that wives of men of the Home Guard now standing down, have already made the overcoats into dressing gowns for their husbands?

Gratuity

Mr. Hubbard: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is considering the question of a gratuity to members of the Home Guard.

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir.

Mr. Hubbard: Is the Minister satisfied that a short answer of that kind will meet the question of a gratuity, having regard to the gratitude which the people of this country feel towards the Home Guard? Does he not think it would be better to give reasons for not granting a gratuity?

Sir J. Grigg: I am absolutely certain that it would be repugnant to the feeling of the vast majority of the Home Guard to ask for a gratuity.

Sir T. Moore: Is the Minister aware that the Home Guard are proud to give their services free?

Mr. Hubbard: There is no suggestion in my Question regarding payment.

Sir J. Grigg: What does a gratuity mean it it does not involve a payment?

Mr. Hubbard: Is the Minister aware that many members of the Home Guard have made great financial sacrifices in consideration of their duty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who has not?"]—and that they ought to receive compensation?

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS SERVICE (AMERICAN, DOMINION AND COLONIAL FORCES)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information showing the terms of service overseas applied to the American Armed Forces, Dominion Forces, and Crown Colony Forces, respectively

Sir J. Grigg: I understand that there is no tour of service fixed in the American Armed Forces or in general in the Forces of the Dominions except that they are working towards one in the case of New Zealand. For military reasons a number of formations of those Forces, as of the United Kingdom Forces, returned to their homeland at some time or other in the course of the war. As far as non-European colonial troops are concerned no scheme to bring troops back home after a fixed period is in operation.

Mr. Brown: Is it not a fact that whether or not there is a formula governing this matter, the period of overseas service of the Forces referred to in the Question works out in practice to considerably less than is exacted from British soldiers; and must the British soldier get the rough end of the stick all the time?

Sir J. Grigg: I am as sorry as anybody that it is not possible to give our soldiers conditions in all respects as good as the best of the other Allies, but they are in a position as regards reserves of manpower in which we unfortunately are not.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN INVASION PLANS (CAPTURED DOCUMENTS)

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the folders, booklets and maps captured from the Germans in Brussels and designed for the invasion of Britain, have been received in this country; and whether they will be placed on sale as souvenirs of the war and as a warning of the dangers averted, the proceeds to be given to the Red Cross.

Sir J. Grigg: A selection of this material has been received but the answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question is "No, Sir," at least while we are still at war with Germany.

Oral Answers to Questions — NURSING SISTERS (OVERSEAS SERVICE)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to equalise the period of overseas service for R.A.F. nursing sisters and Army nursing sisters, having regard to the fact that the period for the former is two and for the latter five years.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am not sure whether any radical change will be possible, but the question is being examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (JOINT RESOURCES BOARD, REPORT)

Captain Thorneycroft: asked the Prime Minister (1) what were the sources of the information contained in the Report of the Joint Resources Board on the Coal Industry which was made available on the understanding that it would not be published; and whether such sources of information have been consulted as to the desirability of publication;
(2) what representations he has received from the Mining Association and the Mineworkers' Federation as to the desirability or otherwise of publishing the Report of the Joint Resources Board on the Coal Industry and the nature of such representations;
(3) what representations have been received from Government Departments or organisations in the U.S.A. objecting to the publication of the Report of the Joint Resources Board on the Coal Industry.

Mr. Attlee: The Report of the recent United States Coal Mission was, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power earlier informed the House, prepared as a confidential Report to the Combined Production and Resources Board. The information on which the Report was based was obtained from a great number of sources, official and other, at a series of formal and informal meetings last summer. In view of the intention that the Report should be confidential, no question arose of consulting these sources of information as to the desirability of publication. As my right hon. and gallant Friend stated on 17th October, it would be undesirable to set


a precedent of publishing confidential joint Reports to the Combined Production and Resources Board. It will be appreciated that this is a decision taken by the Government as a matter of general policy.
As regards representations as to the desirability or otherwise of publication, my right hon. and gallant Friend received on 22nd August a personal letter from the President of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain asking that the Report should be published in order to dispel certain rumours, originating in the United States. No representations, one way or another, have been received from the Mining Association, Government Departments or organisations in the United States of America concerning the publication of the Report.

Captain Thorneycroft: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether, if no objections to publications have been received and the only representations have been requests for publication—and these representations have come from all sides of the House—he does not think this matter could be reconsidered? Further, is there any foundation for the statement that in addition to some of the comments on the attitude of both miners and mine owners representations have been made in the Report about the attitude of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Attlee: I have explained to the hon. and gallant Member that this is one of the series of Reports, and that it is undesirable to set a precedent by publishing them. I have no knowledge of the other matter to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he knows about these rumours? Has he heard them? Can he say which are worst—the rumours or the Report?

Mr. Attlee: I have not heard anything about rumours.

Mr. James Griffiths: Could not my right hon. Friend reconsider publication of this Report, in view of the fact that the difference between output in America and this country is not due to the men but to the superior equipment over there?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Great Britain and Dominions (Double Taxation)

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the desirability of amending Subsection (5) of Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1920, so as to provide that deduction from the rate of United Kingdom Income Tax in respect of Dominion Income Tax relief should be restricted to dividends on shares other than those carrying a fixed preferential rate of dividend.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I note my hon. Friend's suggestion, which will be borne in mind when occasion arises for reviewing the existing arrangements for relief of double taxation.

Sir L. Lyle: Is it not a fact that in the first instance companies operating in the Dominions pay both United Kingdom and Dominion tax, and therefore the relief only makes them the same as a company working in the United Kingdom? Further, is it not a fact that if compelled to pass on the relief the tax they pay is 15s. or thereabouts?

Sir J. Anderson: I had assumed that that was the point of my hon. Friend's Question; the matter was carefully considered in the first instance.

Motor Vehicles (Taxation)

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what date he received, as an outcome of his invitation to motor manufacturers, proposals for a revision of the motor taxation system; and if he is yet in a position to reply;
(2) if he is aware that the continued delay in announcing his decision as to whether he will accept the recommendations of the motor-car manufacfuturers for a revision of the taxation system has made useless the decision conveyed to the trade that they could begin pre-production planning of their post-war activities.

Sir J. Anderson: I received a statement from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on 9th June, but I have received later statements from other


interests which I am considering. I hope to be in a position to make a statement in the near future.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend try to speed up the machinery of government, which is absurdly slow at the present time and injurious to the export trade?

Sir J. Anderson: This is not a question of the machinery of government; these are matters of great importance, and it is just as well that they should be fully considered.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: In considering these recommendations, is the Chancellor accepting as his principle the necessity for extracting the same amount of revenue from motor taxation, whatever its basis may be?

Sir J. Anderson: I dealt with that point fully in the course of the Budget Debate.

Dutiable Merchandise (Smuggling By Air)

Mr. Stourton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the wholesale smuggling of dutiable merchandise by air from France and the Low Countries; and whether in a recent case where 1,000 bottles of champagne were discovered in the vicinity of Manor Road, Chelmsford, those responsible have been apprehended and brought to trial.

Sir J. Anderson: I am aware that there are indications that some smuggling is taking place in the manner described in the first part of the Question, and I may say that all possible counter-measures are being taken. With regard to the second part, the case is being appropriately dealt with.

Mr. Stourton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that unless energetic counter-measures are taken this latest form of "black-marketeering" will become an epidemic?

Sir J. Anderson: I am well aware that the matter wants very careful consideration.

Mr. Stourton: Can my right hon. Friend state the location of the 1,000 bottles of champagne at the present time?

Old Age Pensions

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual cost would be to increase the supplementary old age pension to £2 5s. a week in place of £1 15s. a week for man and wife; and to increase the single allowance to £1 5s. a week in place of £1 a week.

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend no doubt realises that many supplementary pensioners are already in receipt of more than 45s. if married and 25s. if single, because the basic scales he mentions are for needs other than rent, for which an additional allowance is paid. The cost of increasing the scales by 5s. for a single person and by 10s. for a married couple would be about £21,000,000 a year for existing supplementary pensions, but it is not possible to estimate the total cost as an unknown number of additional pensioners would then become eligible for supplementary pensions.

Mr. Tinker: Is the Chancellor aware that the scales laid down in 1935 are causing grave hardship, and that the time has come when they should be given some consideration?

Sir J. Anderson: That is another question.

Sterling Balances

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of Treasury Bills held by Empire and allied countries as sterling balances; and what are the respective percentages of the total.

Sir J. Anderson: I regret that the information for which my hon. Friend asks is not at my disposal.

Sir H. Williams: Has not my right hon. Friend any information at all about these very large obligations contracted in sterling?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, I have a good deal of information, but the particular information for which my hon. Friend asks is not at my disposal.

Indian Troops, Pay (Treasury Liability)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the agreement with the Government of India as to the payment by His Majesty's Treasury in respect of the service of Indian troops outside India; what is the


total liability to date and how much of this liability is not included in the total of the National Debt.

Sir J. Anderson: Payments by His Majesty's Government in respect of Indian troops serving outside India are one item covered by the comprehensive financial arrangements on defence expenditure agreed between the two Governments, which were described in the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for India on 29th February, 1940 (OFFICIAL REPORT, c. 2255). All expenditure by His Majesty's Government under the agreement to which I have referred is met from the Vote of Credit, and therefore is a charge to the Budget which, as my hon. Friend knows, is financed partly from revenue and partly by borrowings which add to the National Debt.

Sir H. Williams: Cannot my right hon. Friend give the figures asked for?

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot give separate figures because the cost is not broken down in the way indicated in the Question.

Sir H. Williams: Surely my right hon. Friend must know what the liability is?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, I know what the total liability is.

Sir H. Williams: That is what I asked for.

Sir J. Anderson: No; my hon. Friend asked for the liability under particular heads.

Bronze Coins

Mr. Murray: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the shortage of copper coins; and will he take steps to increase the supply.

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. Seasonal causes commonly involve some adjustments between local supplies of bronze coin at this time of year, but I am not aware of any general shortage. Pence are being issued on a limited, but considerable, scale in accordance with my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) on 20th April last. Ample supplies of half-pence and farthings have been issued.

Mr. Murray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that banks, incorporated societies, shops and trams and buses are all having

very great difficulty in carrying on, owing to the want of coppers?

Sir J. Anderson: No, I am not aware of that.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shortage of coppers affects particularly old age pensioners and that in their case it is not seasonal but continual?

War Damage Commission (Receipts and Payments)

Colonel Burton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the War Damage Fund has been claimed; and what percentage has been disbursed.

Sir J. Anderson: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is under some misapprehension. There is no War Damage Fund; receipts from contributions being paid into the Exchequer and payments by the War Damage Commission being made out of moneys provided by Parliament. In accordance with Section 81 of the War Damage Act, 1943, statements of receipts and payments in relation to each financial year are laid before Parliament on or before the 30th day of November next following the expiration of that year.

Colonel Burton: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the pace at which claims are being settled?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a different question.

Unmarried Women (Contributory Pensions)

Miss Rathbone: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on the new Social Insurance Scheme if the age for retirement pensions, at the same rate as at present, were reduced for single women to 58 or 55 years of age, assuming that the cost was met by increased contributions paid by, or on behalf of, all women, married or single, distributed in the same proportion between the women, their employers and the Exchequer as in other parts of the scheme; what would be the increased weekly contributions required from women; and what would be the increased contributions from single women, if levied on contributions paid by, or on their behalf, similarly distributed.

Sir W. Jowitt: I have been asked to reply. The cost of reducing the pension


age under the new social insurance scheme, for single women only, from 60 to either 58 or 55, for a pension of £1 a week, would, if taken in isolation, require an extra contribution of about 2d. or 5d., respectively, if paid by or in respect of all women until marriage. The necessary contribution would be only slightly reduced if the liability were extended to all women contributors, married and unmarried. As the hon. Member will appreciate, however, if she reads paragraph 11 of the Government Actuary's memorandum, which deals with the basis of the contributions for women under the scheme, a change in the pension age for single women would necessitate a general reconsideration of the rates of contribution proposed for all classes, both men and women—a task which I should not feel justified in asking the Government Actuary to undertake at the present time.

Defence and Evacuated Areas (Rehabilitation)

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now considered the Report on conditions in the Defence and Evacuated Areas; and what plans have been made by the Government for financial assistance for the rehabilitation of these areas.

Sir J. Anderson: I hope it will be possible to make a statement shortly.

Major Taylor: Can we hope for a statement this Session?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not without hope myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE FIRM (R.A.F. OFFICER'S RELEASE)

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the industrial activities of Messrs. Philip Hill Investment Trust and Philip Hill and Partners, which are of such importance that the Treasury supported the application of Wing-Commander Hubert Meredith for release from the R.A.F., in order to become managing director of the said concerns.

Sir J. Anderson: By agreement with the Ministry of Labour and the Service Departments, applications for the release from the Forces of members of the staff

of private concerns on the ground of national interest are considered only if sponsored by a Government Department. The firm in question is concerned with the finances of a number of undertakings which had, before the war, important overseas markets in Europe, South America and the East. In view of the paramount importance of export trade after the war, the Treasury supported the application for the release of this officer, who is now over 60 years of age.

Mr. Hopkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer my Question? What are the industrial activities of these people, and does he mean to imply that anybody who holds shares in an industrial concern as this undertaking does—and that is its sole function—is entitled to release from the Armed Forces?

Sir J. Anderson: I made it clear that this decision was taken after full consideration, for the reasons I have stated.

Mr. Hopkinson: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question. What are the industrial activities which convinced the Treasury that this man should be released?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Sir J. Anderson: If Members will read my answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow they will see quite clearly that the grounds on which the exemption was applied for concerned indirect interests rather than direct industrial activity.

Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: Is it not a common practice for the Services to release men of this age, over 60, who were volunteers in the first place?

Sir J. Anderson: That seems to me not unreasonable.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not also a fact that the managing director of this company recently died, and that it was on that account that it was necessary to ask for this officer's return?

Sir J. Anderson: That may be so.

Mr. Hopkinson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — HANSARD, HOUSE OF COMMONS (DAILY OUTPUT)

Commander King-Hall: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what were the average daily figures for the issue of HANSARD (Commons Debates) for the months of October, 1943, and October, 1944, respectively; and what is the present maximum daily output of HANSARD (Commons Debates).

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): The average daily issue was 5,450 copies for October, 1943, and 8,300 copies for October, 1944. The present maximum daily output is 10,000 copies.

Commander King-Hall: In view of the margin between the present output and the maximum output, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision about making a few hundred copies available for secondary schools?

Mr. Peake: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has only asked for certain statistics, and those I have furnished. I cannot answer his supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENTAL INSPECTORS (POWERS)

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many Departments appoint inspectors who have the right of interrogating the public as to aspects of departmental work or individual methods of life and trading; and whether he will give detailed information in each case as to the authority exercised.

Mr. Peake: Many Departments are empowered to require information to be furnished on various aspects of their work, though, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, the majority of such powers are of an emergency character governed by the terms, and the duration, of Defence Regulations. Without further knowledge of what my hon. Friend has in mind by the phrase "methods of life and trading" I regret that I am unable to answer the latter part of his Question.

Sir L. Lyle: Cannot my right hon. Friend answer the first part of the Question?

Mr. Peake: It is a matter of some difficulty without a clear knowledge of what

my hon. Friend means by "interrogation." If he will refer to Defence Regulation 80A, he will find the names of a number of Departments set out.

GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE

Visit of Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not himself returned to this country, he has asked me to give, with the leave of the House, a brief account of our visit to the French capital this last week-end. The over-whelming impression left upon our minds by those crowded hours was of the sincerity and spontaneity of the welcome accorded to us by every section of the French people. The House will recall, perhaps, that for reasons of security no announcement was made of the Prime Minister's presence, even on the morning of the Armistice ceremony, in the French papers themselves; yet the news of his coming had spread overnight, widely enough at least for immense multitudes to assemble on the main thorough-fares through which he was to pass. It would be a great mistake to interpret this welcome as a momentary effervescence of spirit in a great capital city at last delivered from four years of foreign rule. It was something much deeper than that. It was rather the expression of a deep thankfulness for suffering at last ended. One felt behind the tumultuous greetings of these vast but orderly crowds the heart beat of a nation once again united with its Allies and confident of its own future.
It is difficult for us here to picture the life that is endured by a great nation under enemy occupation, completely severed from all contact with the outside world, dominated by enemy propaganda and able only to get encouragement from time to time from some clandestine listening to broadcasts from overseas. Here it is right that I should say that from countless Frenchmen we heard expressions of the inspiration and the will to live which they have drawn front the broadcasts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, let it be added, from the daily regular work of the B.B.C. and its contributors.
Most of the German propaganda was directed against this country but the fact remains—a fact of which we should take note—that the effect of this propaganda, taken together with the sufferings of the French people in this period of tyrannous enemy rule, has been to place our friendship with France on a surer foundation than has ever existed before in the history of our two countries. It seems indeed that the knowledge that our friendship has survived this, the most severe strain that could be put upon it, gives it a deeper and a more vibrant significance. That, I am convinced, is the message which Paris was giving to this country during that week-end.
In the course of his speech of welcome to us, General de Gaulle recalled Hitler's claim that his system would last for a thousand years. "I do not know," said General de Gaulle, "what will remain of his system in a thousand years, but I do know that in a thousand years' time France, which has some experience of blood, sweat and tears, will not have forgotten what has been accomplished in this war through blood, sweat and tears by the noble British people under the leadership of their Prime Minister." These are generous words. They were uttered by a man who himself to-day unquestionably inspires and personifies the unity of the French people. He has around him a band of young and vigorous colleagues who have proved their worth in the ordeal through which France has passed. Among them in particular I would like to mention M. Bidault, now Foreign Minister of France. It was a great pleasure for the Prime Minister and myself to meet this gallant man, who was himself the outstanding leader of the French resistance movement. We could see the same vigour, the same confidence in France's future expressed in the thousands of troops who marched past us in the Champs Elysées, the great majority of whom are very recently enlisted members of the F.F.I., and every man of whom is a volunteer. No one can doubt that when time and opportunity offer, these men will give as splendid an account of themselves against the hated Nazi foe in the field as they have already shown in the bitter and bloody warfare in the interior of France itself.
I would like to make one reference to conditions in France, because I think we should bear in mind that, despite some outward appearances, life in Paris is a constant struggle with material difficulties. The almost total lack of fuel and of transport are, in themselves, a severe hardship in these winter months, but worse than this is the mental suffering which these people have undergone and continue to undergo. There are still over 2,500,000 French prisoners of war, political deportees and forced labourers in Germany. There is scarcely a family of France which has not a husband or a son still in Germany. All parcels and letters have ceased. In fact, deportees have never been allowed any communication of any kind with their families since they were taken away to Germany. When we consider these facts, we can perhaps estimate, too, what the absence of these men means to France, not only in the loss of a great part of what was best in the nation's manhood, with all the social, economic and military consequences entailed, but also in mental distress for those who are left behind.
It is not surprising that in these conditions, France, which after all these years has suddenly regained her freedom, should be like a man emerging from a darkened room into a blaze of light, dazed for a moment and grateful still to his friends for a measure of understanding and encouragement. Let us interpret this in the terms of France's position as a great Power. It was indeed appropriate that the three Allied Powers, the United States of America, the Soviet Union and ourselves, were able to invite France, on this very Saturday, to take her place with us as a permanent member of the European Advisory Commission. The new situation which was thus created and the work that must flow therefrom was naturally the subject of discussion between us in Paris. Of these discussions, I will only say now that both the French Ministers and ourselves regarded them as eminently satisfactory.
I would conclude with this confident message to the House. France's determination to work together with her Allies expresses, I am sure, the heartfelt wish of the French people, and it is the will of the people which is the only sure foundation of a foreign policy in a free land. France will recover. Before now in her history she has shown powers of


recuperation which have astounded the world. It is my belief that she will do this again, and she can be assured that in her endeavour she will have the constant friendship, understanding and help of the British peoples everywhere.

Sir Percy Harris: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware how much the nation and Parliament appreciate the visit of the Prime Minister and himself to Paris, particularly as it was realised that it was not without risk? Would it not be possible—I think it will be the general desire of the nation—at an early date to give a reception to the head of the French people, General de Gaulle?

Mr. Eden: It is our hope that the visit that has been paid to Paris will, in due course, be returned, and our French friends know how welcome they will be whenever arrangements can be made.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it proposed that an early opportunity shall be taken by the Government to inform the House of the decisions arrived at with the French Government concerning the French roles in Europe which are not of a military character?

Mr. Eden: Certainly, Sir, but it is not so much a question of decisions arrived at. As I explained, we examined the consequences that will flow from the French participation in the European Advisory Commission, and I hope that in the Debate on the Address there will be a good opportunity for a statement of the whole position as we see it as a result of these conversations.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Captain Cunningham-Reid: On Business, may I ask the Leader of the House how many Orders he hopes to take to-day?

Mr. Eden: We hope to get the first two Orders and then the Motion that follows on the Paper.

NOTICES OF MOTION (NAMES OF SUPPORTERS)

Major Trevor Cox: I wish to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a question which concerns Motion No. 83 on the Order Paper.

[That this House requests His Majesty's Government to appoint a Committee to inquire publicly into the provision made by Government Departments, Local Authorities and Charities for children deprived of a normal home life, and to make recommendations.]

I discovered, by accident, that my name had been put down as a supporter of this Motion without my knowledge and without any prior consultation. I am reluctant to raise the matter, but I believe there have been other cases. I know of one or two. Therefore, I thought I would ask your guidance, Sir, in regard to it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is perfectly right in raising this matter, because it is of some importance that, when names are put down to a Motion by hon. Members, they should ascertain that these are the names of supporters of the Motion, and that they are put down correctly. I am told that sometimes that has not been the case in the past. I am told, too, that very often postcards are put on the Table, presumably for supporters of the Motion, and sometimes a card states, "I am not in favour of my name being added, as I do not support the Motion." That shows tha sufficient care is not always taken to see that the lists put in are correct. I am told, also, that a whole list of names was put in the other day in support of the wrong Motion. All that means a great deal of extra work, and I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for raising the question.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (ACCOMMODATION)

Special Report from the Joint Committee (with Minutes of Evidence) [Inquiry not completed] brought up, and read; Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 116].

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

Ordered, That the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, &c., be laid before this House.— [Colonel Sir Charles McAndrew.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Prolongation of Parliament Bill, without Amendment.

Town and Country Planning Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed [Bill 55].

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE [MONEY]

12.15 p.m.

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Ministry of Social Insurance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) to any Minister of Social Insurance appointed under that Act of an annual salary not exceeding five thousand pounds;
(b) to any Parliamentary Secretary appointed by any such Minister of an annual salary not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds;
(c) of the expenses of any such Minister (including such salaries or remuneration to any other secretaries and to any officers and servants appointed by him as the Treasury may determine) save in so far as those expenses are to be paid in some other manner by virtue of any enactment applied to that Minister under that Act."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment and functions of Minister of Social Insurance.)

12.13 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, leave out from the beginning to "a," and insert:
If His Majesty is pleased to appoint any person to be a Minister of the Crown by the name of.
I cannot pretend that this Amendment will have any great effect upon our war effort or upon our constitutional liberties when peace returns, but I think it has just sufficient importance to authorise me to ask the Committee to listen to one or two considerations. If I may take together this Amendment and the Amendment—
In page 1, line 6, leave out "and," and insert "then"—
the effect of passing them would be to make Clause 1 read as follows:
If His Majesty is pleased to appoint any person to be a Minister of the Crown by the name of Minister of Social Insurance, then there shall be transferred to that Minister

12.15 p.m.
There are two formulæ ordinarily used by the draftsmen in these Bills which set up new Ministries. I think that when a new Ministry is to be presided over by a Secretary of State the formula which I am now proposing has invariably been used, but when the Ministry is not to be presided over by one of His Majesty's principal secretaries the formula in the Bill as drafted is more usually employed, but the formula which I venture to prefer is sometimes employed, and was so employed as lately as 1942. There is not very much of great substance in this, and I would not pretend that there is, but there is this much: First, the formula which I suggest is the politer of the two, and I think for that reason is to be preferred; and, secondly, if there is any effect upon the relation between prerogative powers and statutory powers as between these two forms of words—if there is any difference and I will not pretend that I am sure there is any considerable difference—then the words which I suggest are words which leave the prerogative untouched, and when statutory omnicompetence is beyond challenge it seems to me on the whole useful that the Committee should not accept, except for a very strong reason, anything which might diminish the potential of prerogative, a potential which might come in useful on later occasions.

The Chairman: It would I think be for the convenience of the Committee to consider at the same time the following two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams)—
In page 1, line 5, leave out "it shall be lawful for".
In line 5, leave out "to", and insert "may".

Sir Herbert Williams: I should like to raise a point which brings us into rather a different sphere, and that is the significance of the words "may" and "shall" which come before us from time to time. When in a Bill it says that something "may" be done that confers a power to do something; though it is "may", the Minister has got to do it. That is why we are told that "may" has the same meaning as "shall". That is borne out by the Interpretation Act. Here the words are, "It shall be lawful for His Majesty," and the curious position


is that under Section 30 of the Interpretation Act the Crown is put in the same position as the subject. There is no reason why in the case of something applying to the subject the word should be "may" and when it applies to the Crown the word should be "shall". When those who practise in the courts see in an Act of Parliament words different from those which they are accustomed to see they want to know the reason for the difference. They always ask, "What did Parliament really mean"? For that reason I am rather keen that we should have a uniform code in these matters and not a code which seems to vary from Bill to Bill, and to some extent my Amendment raises that issue in addition to the issue raised by my hon. and learned Friend opposite.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not learned.

Sir H. Williams: Well, my historical friend; I beg his pardon. There is no consistency at all in these matters. When Parliament passed the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, a formula was used quite different from any other, because the Act says:
There shall be a Minister of Pensions appointed by His Majesty.
That is a most curious formula. There should be some coherence in these matters. I support my hon. Friend's Amendment. If his is accepted I do not want mine, but if his is not accepted I want mine.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I should like to support both the Amendment of the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and to make one or two remarks on the phrase "It shall be lawful." I am not dealing with the precedents in former Acts; I am sure they are of recent date and that they do not go back much farther than the last century. To my mind the phrase "It shall be lawful for His Majesty" is impertinent to His Majesty, because it suggests that His Majesty can also do something which is unlawful, and that is completely wrong. We all know the old maxim which says, "The King can do no wrong." Although the King might appoint a Minister without coming to this House the King would not be doing any-

thing unlawful, but he would be merely misguided. The acts of such a Minister would be unlawful, but not the act of the King in appointing him. This matter has been dealt with by many of our constitutionalists. Long ago a famous judge made it clear that everyone is under the King and that the King is under no one, unless, indeed, Almighty God. Therefore, I suggest that the words "It shall be lawful for His Majesty" are inappropriate. Our Whig ancestors, if they had had any notion of the extent to which the prerogative would have got into the hands of the Executive Government in a generation such as this would probably not have been quite so pushing in their attitude in that particular regard, and I think, although it may be only a matter of phraseology in these days, that the words "It shall be lawful" should be left out of this Bill.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I am grateful to my two hon. Friends for putting down these Amendments and raising this point, because it enables me to tell the Committee that I agree with my hon. Friend that we ought to be uniform. We did carefully consider the most appropriate formula for a Bill of this kind a year ago, when the drafting of the Town and Country Planning Act was under consideration, and I think I can convince the Committee that, on the whole, this formula is best, though I agree there is not a great deal in it. In the first place, of course, it is a fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) emphasised, that the Crown has a prerogative right, exercised, of course, under the advice of Ministers, to create new offices and appoint persons to fill them. They cannot, of course, sit in this House unless there is statutory authority for them to do so. The Minister in West Africa, and the Minister in Washington were appointed under the general prerogative powers, but they could only sit in this House by virtue of the certificate under an Act which we are not discussing to-day. That is important, and I agree that that right is preserved and should be preserved.
Now we come to a different type of Minister, the type we are dealing with in this Bill, where the office is created by Parliament. There is a difference here. This office has its source in the Statute. My hon. Friend who moved the first


Amendment drew attention to the fact that in the past a different form of words has been used when making a new Secretary of State from those used when creating a new Minister by the powers of the Bill, as happens here. That is because Secretary of State is an old prerogative office and it has been recognised that the Crown can create new Secretaries of State, which would, of course, need an Act if they were going to sit in this House, but otherwise I think would not need an Act.
The problem which we had to face was what was the appropriate form of words to mark this distinction, that is to say the distinction between the point when an office is created by Statute and when it is the creation of the prerogative power. We considered the precedents. Precedents are not always binding, if they are bad precedents one can depart from them, and, indeed, in one sense in this formula we depart from a precedent. We found, going back to 1756, an Act which set up, I think, the father of the Office of Works. In that Act we found the formula "It shall be lawful," which has been used generally when offices were the creation of Statute. It seemed to us that that had some constitutional importance, and that it would be a pity to depart from a formula which for nearly two centuries had normally been used, when dealing, as here, with an office which was the creation of Statute. We therefore thought it would be right to use that phrase "It shall be lawful."
It is said that there was a more recent case, in 1942, where there was a departure. I agree that we have not been quite uniform, but when we went into the circumstances in more detail we came to the conclusion that it would be better to get back to the old formula which has its roots in the past in order to mark the distinction which I have demonstrated. I hope the Committee will take that view. I am not quite sure what I am dealing with now. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has an Amendment about the word "shall" in line 6, and I am not sure whether that is before the Committee. It is a rather different point, but I will deal with it. I agree with my hon. Friend and should like to be able to draw up a simple code to say when "may" is to be used and when "shall," but it is not so easy, because of the variety of circumstances which present themselves.
I will tell the Committee why we use "shall" here. There is not a great deal in it but in Clause 6 there is a power to transfer certain powers. There is no definite group of powers which have got to be transferred, and if we had put in the word "may" somebody might have got up and said "You have only an optional power; you need not do anything at all." Therefore, the word "shall" was inserted to make it clear. I will give the reason, although some may think it a bad one. The word "shall" was inserted to make it clear that it was the intention of the Bill that there "shall" be a transfer of powers. I think that is a good example of a rather unusual set of circumstances which leads one to use the word "shall," and I think it is the appropriate word.

12.30 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: May I point out that under Section 32 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, it is a duty to exercise the power which is conferred, so that the Interpretation Act says in effect that when the word "may" is used, it has the operative effect of "shall".

The Attorney-General: It is rather an exceptional power because it gives discretion as to whether you "shall" transfer. That is precisely the reason why we thought it best to depart from the word "may," and use "shall." If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 6, he will see that there is a power to transfer any of the powers, but it does not say that you are to transfer, as so often happens in these Acts. Anyhow, that is the reason and I think it is a good reason.

Sir H. Williams: It has no relationship to the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry. I thought my hon. Friend had moved to leave out "shall" and substitute "may" in Clause 6.

Sir H. Williams: No, what I said was that if I carried my Amendment, this would read "His Majesty may appoint."

The Attorney-General: I pointed out to my hon. Friend that he had an Amendment down dealing with "shall" in line 6, and he said he had the leave of the Chair to deal with that. If it was a mistake, I apologise, but perhaps later when the Amendment is moved, I will not have to repeat what I have said. On the


main point, I ask the Committee to allow us to keep the words "it shall be lawful for" and if we get a decision of the Committee to that effect, it might save discussions of this kind in the future.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not in the least trying to dispute with my right hon. and learned Friend, but I want to get this matter clear in my own mind. I had a rather vague notion that it was a rule of law—I think established by a leading case about 100 years ago—that where statutory competence enters a field, prerogative competence is, thereby, for the future, excluded from that field. Therefore, I heard with a little dubiety my right hon. and learned Friend say that prerogative should be and is preserved. I ask him to assure me that when he said that, he was speaking deliberately.

The Attorney-General: I quite agree that one wants to be careful about how one uses words in this technical field, but, where the office is the creation of a Statute, and not the creation of the prerogative, one is clearly in a different constitutional area from that in which no office has been created by Statute but by His Majesty the King, and all I said was confined to the case such as this where the office was itself a creation by statute.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, leave out "Social", and insert "National".
I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) is not present to move this Amendment. He is busy elsewhere and therefore I am obliged to move it in his place. I am sure that he would have moved this Amendment far better than I can do; I yield to him in mastery of, but not in affection for, the English language. He has been for years drawing attention to various examples of the practice of Government Departments in presenting to Parliament Bills which contain unfortunate jargon such as there is in this one. The object of this Amendment is to change the title "Ministry of Social Insurance" to "Ministry of National Insurance". It seems that there is no possible reason for using the expression "social insurance" at all. It is very

curious how phrases obtain currency, in quite a wrong interpretation. Very often they do not mean in the least what they appear to say. We had such an example —if I may use the analogy—in the expression "collective security". Everybody thought "collective security" meant huddling together for common action, whereas it meant the security one hoped to obtain by common action.
Here we are dealing with another phrase which it is sought to introduce into an Act of Parliament, but which does not mean what it professes to mean. I am glad my right hon. Friend the Minister-Designate is here to-day. I certainly do not like the expression "Minister-Designate". I think it is foreign to the House of Commons and I have never heard it used before. It reminds one of a Crown Prince of a rather unsuccessful principality somewhere in central Europe, although it does mean, to some extent, what it professes to mean. "Social insurance," however, in a Bill of this kind does not mean anything. The insurance is
doubtful. The State contributes a large proportion to that insurance, and I think we can accept the title of the present National Insurance Act, but to put the word "social" in here does not mean anything except in so far that all insurance is, to some extent, bound up with society. Any form of insurance means the insuring either of members of society or, broadly speaking, of their goods, but why put it into a Bill of this kind? It seems to me to be pure jargon.
If I may use another analogy to show how entirely nonsensical this expression is, I would remind the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman who is about to become Minister of Social Insurance—we hope "National Insurance"—is at present Minister without Portfolio. I believe it would sound a little odd if we had suggested that a new office should be created known as the "Ministry without Social Portfolio." If you compare that with the expression "social insurance." it seems to me you have a fair analogy, and it shows how idiotic the expression is. I hope the Government will consider this point. This is not a matter of carping criticism; many of us believe that when an expression is used, that expression should mean precisely what it professes to mean, and should not be inserted


merely in order to look nice and agreeable. In other words, it should not be a further example of that from which we have suffered in the past. I hope, therefore, that the Government will change this expression which is, at best, redundant, and, at worst, nonsensical.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I beg to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick). I too prefer the word "national" to "social." The word "national", for what it is worth, does stimulate some sort of patriotic spirit. If I, as a non-manual worker, have to pay 4s. 2d. a week for the rest of my life and if when I am ill I cannot get my benefit for several weeks and, because I continue to work, I do not get my pension, I would rather think I was suffering patriotically under a national Minister. If by any chance this scheme does not work—and it might not work if the economic condition of our country is not looked after very carefully when the war is over—it may well be nothing less than organised poverty —I would rather bear with that scheme if I knew, as I have said, that it was being run under a national Minister. That would maintain my spirits. I dislike the word "social" intensely. I have always associated the word with those people in and outside of this House who are concerned with the welfare of all men of all nations but seem to have no friends themselves. I dislike it too when applied to Governmental matters because these things, I believe, originated in Germany. The Germans were the past masters—the forerunners—of all this sort of thing. In the last century they established social ministers for pensions, for health insurance, and so on. They did that consistently, because they were so full of charity and brotherly love towards one another.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who has been recently much extolled, borrowed his scheme from the social aspirations of the Germans, but he did have the decency to call it "national insurance." I remember too that when British doctors were going to refuse to work the scheme because of its obvious injustices he was so impressed by the State sociability of Germany that he even thought of bringing those social-minded German doctors into this coun-

try to take their place. Right up to the beginning of the war the Germans maintained their sociability—they had their "Strength through Joy" movement. They promised motor cars for all. They endeavoured to produce perfect physical health in the workman by sending him to the labour camp at a shilling a day. That social method resulted in the most ruthless totalitarian regime in the history of the world, in the most savage war of all time, and even during the war they still stick to their social methods by winter help campaigns.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman is getting far beyond the Amendment. The question before the Committee is one of changing a name.

Dr. Thomas: I am trying to show why the change of name should be made. I dislike the word "social" because it brings up all these associations in my mind. I want to show how much more preferable "national" is to "social." With your permission, Major Milner, I propose to complete this part of my speech very quickly, but I would remind the Committee—I believe this is quite in order—that in the year 1789, a nation which was wishing to become super-social and which wanted to establish sociability among nations for all time, quarrelled with its past history, and destroyed its traditions and the happiness of more than one generation. These people did not foresee, however, the corruption and the disruption and the humiliation of the Third Republic. Those are some of the reasons why I dislike the word "social."
If, therefore, I am to suffer, possibly, under the failure of a scheme of this kind, if I am to become for my remaining mortal years a member of an ant-hill or, a beehive. I would rather do that in a patriotic manner and think that I am suffering under a national Minister however variegated his political coat. I think, perhaps, in saying these things, I have the approval of, possibly, a few of my colleagues. I will not put it too high. I was foolish enough to do this a short while ago and 1 certainly will not do it again unless I have it in writing. But I do not seek the approval of any on this bench or anywhere else who are considering trimming their political sails in a "Jowitical" manner, so as to ensure a safe place for themselves in any provisional Government.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: The mover of the Amendment, and myself, and, I hope, others associated with it, somewhat regret it has obtained support from the hon. Member who has just spoken. If he had not spoken, I think I could say with some degree of confidence that the Minister would accept the Amendment, not only for the reasons put forward by the mover, but for considerations which have already weighed with the Committee this morning and which have been put forward by the Attorney-General in resisting previous Amendments; that is to say, the consideration of consistency of language in Statutes and of attaching recognised meanings to words that are employed. We are here faced with the word "social," which we desire to remove. I have looked up the authorities, as I could not remember having seen that word in an Act of Parliament before. I looked up many books and official indices to the various digests. I have been through them all, and I can find the word used only once. It will be found in the official compilation dealing with statutory definitions. The expression "social insurance" is there to be found, but I noticed that it was printed in italics. On looking at the commencement of the volume, I was informed that words in italics were only cross-reference heads, and not terms actually found in any Act of Parliament. Therefore, the onus is heavily upon the Government to establish some specific reason for introducing a word which has never been found in legislation before.
The good reason would be that the Measure deals with a novel proposal, and a type of insurance that has never been known before, but all Members of the Committee will be aware that insurance for unemployment and health has been found in the law of this country for some time. When one turns to the first Act of Parliament dealing with insurance, the Act of 1911 which, I would remind the Committee, dealt not only with health insurance but with unemployment insurance as well, one sees it is called the "National Insurance Act". Therefore, we already have on the Statute Book an example of the use of the word "national" in a comprehensive sense, dealing with insurance. I therefore put it to the Minister that there is no case and no precedent for the introduction of the word "social", while

there is ample precedent for the word "national" in the sense in which it is implied in the Bill. I therefore support the Amendment.

Sir Frank Sanderson: In supporting the Amendment I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any significance in the word "social". My reason for supporting the Amendment is that the word "social" expresses to my mind one particular section of the public, rather than the public as a whole. As I understand this Insurance Bill it is, in fact, national. Every member of the community will make his or her contribution under the Bill, and will derive benefit from it. Surely, therefore, it is national rather than social.

Mr. Mander: I must say I was somewhat astonished at the definition that has just been given by my hon. Friend. In his eyes, society includes only a limited number of people commonly known as the members of the best or highest society.

Sir F. Sanderson: No.

Mr. Mander: That was the definition he gave. Surely, society comprises the whole nation.

Sir F. Sanderson: My definition of the word is far removed from that expressed by my hon. Friend. Perhaps, instead of attempting to interpret my views, he would accept my words in the spirit in which they were given.

Mr. Mander: My hon. Friend said that society comprised only a limited number of people and that was the remark which I ventured to criticise. To my mind, that is not so at all. Society includes the whole population in this country, high and low, rich and poor. For that reason "social" seems an eminently suitable word to employ in the Bill. Furthermore, the position is complicated by another Amendment which may be discussed later, suggesting that the word "insurance" should be left out. Of course, I cannot deal with that suggestion now, but it has its bearing on our present discussion. Some of the arguments in favour of the Amendment seem clearly swayed by party passion, and feelings aroused in past disputes and battles. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) was obviously influenced by them. There is


some sort of feeling too that the word "social" is too near to "Socialist" and might give the idea that this is a Socialist Measure. A good deal might be said, if we are going in for slogans, for calling the whole Measure "The Beveridge Act" and having done with it, but I would not suggest that either. The Government would be wise and right to maintain the word "social" because, as I say, it comprises the whole of the people of this country, whose needs and troubles and difficulties are going to be looked after by the Measure now before the House.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: It would be a great pity if the Committee thought that this question was a matter of party differences. It is a question of the right English word to use, and of the meaning to be attached to the word. I believe that the word "national," as has been said already, is historically justified in this connection. This Ministry is the culmination of a long series of Measures, beginning with the great Measure of 1911, which was a national insurance Measure. It will unite under one Minister all forms of national insurance which are at present separated under three Ministers. On the other hand, whatever meaning we may attach to the word "social," the fact remains that not all forms of social insurance will come under the Ministry. There will be admirable forms of insurance, such as insurance for educational endowment, which will not be comprised in any way within the proposals which are before Parliament now. The Minister will have a great and noble title if he is known as "The Minister of National Insurance." It will be understood by everyone, and it will link up his work with all the great work of the past, of which his office is the culmination. I hope therefore that the Amendment may be accepted.

Commander Bower: I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I will not go so far as to agree altogether with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) but to large sections of the nation there is a little in what he says. The word "social" may be taken as slightly suspect, but there is good precedent for the use of the word "national," which cannot have any political significance attached to it. It seems to me obviously the word to use in this connection. As

other hon. Members have pointed out, the word "national" has been used for years to describe this sort of thing and it would be a great pity if it were thought that the Amendment had been put down with any political object. I am quite sure it was not so, although I did not put my name to it. It seems obvious that "national" is the word that should be used, and I urge the Government to accept it.

Mr. A. Bevan: I was very glad to hear the speech of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), although I would point out that if we are going to discuss definitions we may go on for the rest of the day and not make very much progress. The argument that "society" implies all the society within this nation is very foolish. As I understand the matter, "society" is a term embracing all individuals who enter into continuous relationships with each other, in which case we should have to include the rest of the world, because they are in continuous relationship with each other for a large part of the time. Therefore the definition of "social" has a worldwide significance, and no special relation to the nation at all. I, therefore, feel that we must limit the definition, and the limiting definition is the use of the word "national." I should have thought that was self-evident, and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Commander Agnew: I am in favour of the Amendment, which seems to be supported from nearly all sides of the Committee. To me, the word "social" is misleading. It generally connotes some activity of a voluntary kind. There is, for example, the National Council of Social Services, which is quite voluntary. My desire to be associated with this Amendment has nothing to do with any party considerations. May I assure my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that when I think of the Liberal Social Council I do not think of any particularly dangerous party organisation, because, so far as I know, it is a voluntary body and Liberals have not to attend it, unless they want to. So this word "social" is bad in that connection, because it implies a voluntary organisation. On the other hand, the word "national" means that it is all-embracing and comprehensive. The word con-


veys the idea that the Measure will be compulsory in its effect upon everybody. Just as we have a Ministry of Labour and National Service, where the service arranged by the Ministry is compulsory service, so we shall have a Ministry of National Insurance which will include everybody. We should use the word "national" if the scheme is to be compulsory.

Mr. Cocks: I have a vague idea, if not a strong suspicion, that the expression "social insurance" is the result of a typical Coalition compromise. I imagine that the Labour Members of the Coalition wanted to call the new organism "The Ministry of Social Security," hoping that after the next Election the scheme of the Ministry could be placed upon a subsistence basis. I suspect that the Conservatives then said: "Oh no, it is not a security Measure at all; it is an insurance Measure. Let us call it social insurance." Then the Liberals, both the Liberal Nationals and the National Liberals, wanted to put in the word "national," because that is the only word on which the Liberals of both sides are agreed, but they were wiped out, as a small minority. As the Conservatives were in the majority in the Government, a compromise resulted, and their suggestion was adopted.

1.0 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): I think it is time the Government stated their view on this Amendment. There are two changes proposed in regard to the name by which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister-Designate is to be known, after this Bill has passed into permanent legislation. It is suggested on the one hand that we should change the word "Social" which occurs in the Title of the Bill to "National," and there is, as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has indicated, a further Amendment which will be discussed later, changing the word "Insurance" to "Security." It is perfectly obvious that the acceptance of both these Amendments would result in our having a Ministry of National Security, which puts me in mind—

Mr. A. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman, in resisting this Amendment, cannot

take into his purview what might be done on the other Amendment.

Mr. Peake: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait to see whether I am resisting or accepting this Amendment. I have not discussed the course which the Government propose to take. I was saying that it is perfectly clear that we do not desire, in any quarter of the Committee, to have a Minister of National Security. I was not much impressed by the argument of the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas). His objection to the use of the word "Social" in my right hon. and learned Friend's title, is based apparently on the fact that our enemies in this war used to be known, and are still known, as National-Socialists. It clearly cannot be brought as an argument against the word "social" in the Bill that the word was used by Hitler in National-Socialism, or the objection to the use of the word "national" would be equally strong.

Dr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman should not use part of my argument only. I spoke of the impression of the word "social" on me, which I endeavoured to convey to the Committee. I did not expect to impress the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peake: I was indicating to the hon. Member what part of his argument had failed most to impress me. The reason why we included the word "social" in the Bill was that it has been current for many years in international usage. This subject has been discussed at the International Labour Office meetings year after year and for something like 20 years it has been known as "social insurance." Moreover, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) defined it in his Report. If hon. Members look at paragraph 26 of that Report they will see that he says:
The term social insurance' to describe this institution implies both that it is compulsory and that men stand together with their fellows. The term implies a pooling of risks except so far as separation of risks serves a social purpose.
These seemed to us to be quite good reasons for putting the word "Social" in the Title of the Bill. In deference to my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert), whom I had expected to move the Amendment, I looked up the


definition of the word in the Oxford English Dictionary. I found there that perhaps the best definition is that "social" means
marked or characterised by mutual intercourse, friendliness or geniality; enjoyed, taken or spent in company with others.
That would seem, on the face of it, to apply admirably to a scheme of insurance which is to cover, not one subject but several departments, to cover industrial injury, to cover employment, to cover health. These seem to me adequate reasons for putting the word "Social" in the Title of the Bill.
At the same time, this is a House of Commons matter. Members on all sides have spoken in favour of using the word "National" rather than "Social". There has not been a single speech, with the exception of that of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, in favour of the retention of the word "Social".

Mr. Cocks: I supported the Coalition.

Mr. Peake: Very half-heartedly. In these circumstances, I think this is a matter on which the Government might well bow to the wishes of the Committee, and accept this change in name. Therefore, we will accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.

Sir Percy Harris: Unfortunately, I was not present during the earlier part of this discussion, as I was called out of the Chamber. I think it would be unfortunate in a small Committee, with few Members present, to assume that the whole Committee is burning to change the word "social" to the word "national." The words "national insurance" suggest something for the defence of the nation. When we talk about insurance against war, or the danger of war, and the necessity for heavy armaments, we talk about national insurance against war. Whatever this scheme may be, it is not a militant scheme; it is a social scheme to raise the general standard of security among the bulk of the people, bringing in for the first time the whole of the community. That is its significance. It would be rather unfortunate if the word "national" should be brought in, changing the tone and temper of the whole of this great scheme. I do not think it is the right word. I think this change

for the word "social" suggests that the Government do not see in this scheme. as we see, a great social contribution to the general welfare and security of the common people.
So far as I am concerned I do not attach too great importance to words. The success of this Bill will depend first on the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is to be the Minister, and secondly, on the various Acts that will follow to carry out the recommendations of the White Paper. That will be the test of this new Department, not its title, not whether it is called the Ministry of "National Security" or "Social Security." I rather see in this change of title a lack of faith, a weakening of enthusiasm, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury shows himself so easily subject to small pressure from half a dozen Members. Even the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert)—

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking exception to the Government yielding to the pressure of a few Members?

Sir P. Harris: Yes. I am not trying to exercise pressure, I am trying to strengthen the Government to stick to their own title. After many months—two years—they have summoned up courage to create this new Ministry, and because of a half dozen Members they throw over half its title. That is the pressure. I want to strengthen their hands. The right hon. Gentleman who has spoken for the Government showed no enthusiasm for the change. He is only giving way because of pressure. I want to support him in sticking to the original title, which was a good title and bad popular support, and I believe that the nation wants to see it functioning. I am sorry he has given way so soon.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) has handed in a manuscript Amendment. I do not know, having regard to the discussion that is taking place, whether he wishes to take part in it or not, because presumably if the present Amendment is passed, he will not wish to move his Amendment to substitute the word "Security."

Mr. Graham White: I should like to make quite clear, that what has taken place has altered the whole possibility with regard to the Amendment which I and some of my right hon. Friends proposed to move at a later stage. I would, perhaps, be in Order now in saying one or two words on the subject now under discussion. If we are to have an Amendment at all to the Title of the Bill at least let it be an accurate one. We seem to have been allowing ourselves and our imaginations to supply various meanings of the word "national" but the important thing, not only for the immediate purpose, is that the Title should be an accurate one.
It is also important because there may be developments. This Ministry may not last for ever. It may be in the minds of some Members of the Government to propose to transfer, at some stage, the whole of these duties which are being transferred to this new Ministry, to some form of Board. We may as well have the Title accurately given in this Bill, which confers on the Minister important functions which have nothing to do with insurance. There is assistance at an estimated cost of £69,000,000, the raising of £39,000,000 for the national health scheme and family allowances and training. It has not yet been explained to the Committee why not social security, but social insurance is to provide the sum of 5s. for the first child in a family, when the wage-earner in the family is unemployed. We have not yet heard the explanation of why it should be done in that way. That an allowance should be made in those circumstances, I entirely agree, of course, but why that small section of family allowances should be granted under the insurance scheme, is a matter which requires consideration. Then there is the sum of £39,000,000 for national health insurance and a grant of £500,000 to the Ministry of Labour training scheme.
The name of "social insurance" is not the right Title for this Bill. The whole question of assistance comes in, which has nothing whatever to do with insurance. The Title of social insurance is in keeping with the lack of enthusiasm about this scheme. The Government have not done justice to themselves or their proposals in this matter. Their statements are all under-statements. With

regard to this scheme they have failed to relate this important advance in social legislation to Article V of the Atlantic Charter wherein we are pledged to co-operate with other nations in promoting social and economic advancement and social security.

Sir H. Williams: We are not bound by the Atlantic Charter because it is not a Treaty.

Mr. White: The hon. Member may think that is a relevant and worthy intervention, but what I am pleading is that the Government of our country, and we ourselves, should live up to what we ourselves profess.

Sir H. Williams: We do not profess it.

Mr. A. Bevan: Would it not be a dishonest thing to describe a piece of legislation designed as this is—and indeed the hon. Baronet who spoke on Second Reading, talked of it as an insurance scheme and not a social security scheme —as something which it is not? If it changes, then change the title, but if not, let us, meantime, have the reference right.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. White: I think it is quite clear to the Committee that the Title of the Bill, whether it is "National Insurance" or "Social Insurance," is not an accurate description of its present purposes and functions.

Mr. Mander: I gather, Major Milner, that now we are discussing the later Amendment on this point?

The Chairman: No. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) has put in a manuscript Amendment, and I thought it my duty to call his attention to the fact that I should not be able to call that Amendment, in the event of the Committee taking a certain course on the present Amendment. I, therefore, gave him an opportunity to speak now.

Mr. Mander: I hope that other Members will be given a similar opportunity. This is not a Social Insurance Measure: there is a great deal more in it besides. I would ask the Minister who replies to explain how it is that the Measure is properly described in his opinion as an insurance Measure, in view of the fact that it includes these other extremely important things, which have nothing whatever to do with insurance.

Commander Agnew: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the two Amendments together, or should the Debate be properly confined at this stage to the substitution of the word "National"?

The Chairman: No, the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) was straying from the Amendment before the Committee. We are discussing the substitution of the word "National" for "Social," and not the word "Insurance."

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I think, Major Milner, that we are entitled to ask the Minister this question. If, as I am rather sorry to hear, he has accepted this Amendment, does that imply that he is going to accept a change from the word "insurance" to the word "security"?

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): The answer to that is, No. Although I agree that insurance may not be a very accurate Title, because the Bill includes other things, I submit that security is even more inaccurate.

Sir P. Harris: Does my right hon. and learned Friend seriously suggest that this Ministry, which is to be appointed when the Bill becomes law, is merely a Ministry to carry out a scheme of national insurance? If so, with great respect, he will be largely wasting his efforts.

Sir W. Jowitt: It is wider than that. It covers children's allowances, which is not insurance, and it covers assistance, which is not insurance. But it does not include a National Health Service and a hundred-and-one other matters which are essential to security. Therefore, we think that "insurance" is the better term.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I suppose we can continue the discussion as to whether "Social" or "National" shall be used. I am sorry that the Minister so readily gave way. The people of this country for the last two or three years have fully understood all the implications of this scheme, and what the Ministry will have to do. To change the word is really confusing the public mind, however meticulous Members may be about getting the right words. I am surprised that some of my colleagues are supporting the change. After all, there are nations within Great Britain, and the term

"national" might apply either to the Welsh nation, the English nation, the Scottish nation, or the Irish nation. But the word "social" is universal: it applies to all the people in the country. To say that the scheme might apply internationally is merely straining the term. From the very inception of the study of social insurance, particularly since the appointment of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) by the present acting Leader of the Opposition, the people of this country have understood the term "social insurance" much better than they are likely to understand the term "national insurance." I think that the Government were quite correct in their first thoughts, and I still hope that they will not give way. We have been using the term in all our propaganda for the last two or three years—I am not speaking of my party, but of all the parties in the Government. The B.B.C. have been using the term. It is now a public term, understood by the public of this country, and I sincerely trust that the Government will not give way.

Sir William Beveridge: I have hesitated very much t intervene in this Debate, because I felt quite certain that, sooner or later, I should be out of Order, as it seems to me quite impossible to discuss the issue between "national" and "social" without discussing the subsequent words "security" or "insurance." After all, the title of the Minister is these two words together. I hope that I shall be allowed to go on to suggest that by far the best title is "social security," and neither "national security" nor "national insurance," which are both inaccurate, and contrary to the anticipations of the public in regard to this Measure.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to say that the title should be "social security," bringing in the word "security," but, of course, he must not discuss the insertion of the word "security." He is entitled to discuss how other matters will be affected if the word "national" is inserted.

Sir W. Beveridge: If you will assist me, Major Milner, I will try to keep straight on this matter. Clearly, "social security" is the title in the Atlantic Charter, and is the title understood by


people in this country, and everywhere, as the right title. Therefore I for one shall oppose this Amendment, with a view to making it possible to alter the title later to "social security." I would say only one more word on this question of insurance. "Insurance" does not cover certain things which are definitely in the Bill. Of course "social security" does not cover security of all kinds, but "social security" does cover all the things which are in the Bill, while "insurance" does not.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Committee are in some difficulty in discussing subsequent Amendments in this Debate. If I were in Order in discussing now Amendments which I have on the Paper later—which I should certainly not be—I would argue on the question of whether this was a Ministry of Social Security or not. I do not think it is. The Solicitor-General, on the Second Reading, said that payment in cash is under this Ministry, but benefits in kind are under other Ministries. The whole hospitalisation of this country is outside this Bill. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be describing it altogether falsely, to call the Ministry a Ministry of Social Security. I will not enlarge on that, because I should be out of Order and because I hope to be able to discuss that particular aspect on an Amendment which I have put down later; but to call this a Ministry of Social Insurance would be following a practice which has been accepted in this country for many years. The Government have agreed to bow to the wishes of the Committee on the matter, and, therefore, I hope we shall be able to go on to discuss subsequent Amendments, which raise great issues, and not take a long time over a matter on which the Committee have given their views and the Government have given theirs. I do not think the matter can be properly discussed further, without bringing in other Amendments which have not been reached.

Mr. Rhys Davies: My hon. Friends talk about the vocabulary ordinarily in use among the public. Perhaps the Committee will be interested to know that the average man when he falls sick nowadays, and applies for National Health Insurance sickness benefit, talks about "going on Lloyd George." When,

therefore, this new plan comes into operation, the sick will not bother about "national" or "social" insurance; they will simply say, "I want my Beveridge." They will not even mention the right hon. and learned Gentleman apposite; they will quote the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge). Let me say, as one with some experience of this business, that I do not think it matters administratively very much whether you call it "national" or "social." Everyone who has administered the present scheme is accustomed to "National" Health Insurance. I was sorry the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Atlantic Charter in this Debate. I could not understand the relevance of it at all, because the Prime Minister has thrown over the Atlantic Charter long ago. I cannot see the slightest reason for a party political quarrel over these words. All I would say about the word "national" is that it does at any rate distinguish between a State and a Prudential or a Refuge insurance scheme.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Have the Prudential a social insurance scheme?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member would be surprised how much the industrial insurance companies claim for themselves. If I voted at all—which I hope I shall not be called upon to do—I would support the word "national" instead of "social."

Mr. Cocks: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said that he objected to the Bill being altered in the way it would be altered if a subsequent Amendment were carried.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No; I very specially avoided discussing subsequent Amendments, because I said that there was an Amendment of my own which I hoped to discuss later.

Mr. Cocks: Yes, but he said, without using the forbidden word, that it could not be called a National Security Bill, because it did not cover hospitals. He might just as well have said that the Ministry of Health was not a proper title because the Ministry did not include the functions of the Ministry of Food, which are essential to health.


I think that if that title were used, it would give a stimulus to future Parliaments to bring their Measures up to the standard of the legislation which I hope will be passed here, either before or after the next election.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I am sorry that I have not heard most of this Debate, having been at another meeting, but I am bound to say that I feel a little distressed at the intention of the Government to accept this Amendment. After all, this term "social insurance" is now part of the ordinary talk of men and women. It represents a new conception. It is an idea of the community, through its various social agencies, pulling together all the various forms of insurance for social objects, and I should have thought myself that, if Amendments were to be Amendments accepted—and I am not asking that any should be accepted—this was the last one which the Government would ever have thought of accepting. I would like to get rid of the term "national insurance." It is not national insurance in the full sense of the term, anyhow. The term "national insurance" is bound up with the old days. Surely, now, the whole idea is of social security, which is not embodied in this Bill, as the Government have admitted, though it is a national aim now. I should have thought the Government very ill-advised to accept the Amendment—although I gather there is a good deal of feeling in the Committee in favour of the term—and, if the Amendment were to be accepted, I might ask on the Report stage for a further opportunity for reconsideration.

Sir H. Williams: My name is not down to this Amendment, but I have listened to this Debate. We are not discussing anything novel. All we are discussing, as hon. Members will see if they read the Bill, is the transfer of functions of the Minister of Health and Secretary of State for Scotland, with respect to national health insurance, old age pensions, widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions and supplementary pensions, and these are all developments of national insurance. There is nothing novel about that. Then there are the functions of the Minister of Labour and National Service with respect to unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance, which was originally called

national insurance in the Act of 1911. Finally, there are the functions of the Secretary of State with respect to workmen's compensation, which is to be changed from an individual insurance to a national insurance. Family allowances, which are the only novel feature of the scheme, are associated with the scheme of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge).
We have only added a bonus to all the benefits and pulled them about a bit. The only thing that is fresh, legislatively, in the Bill, is family allowances; the rest is merely putting a few more storeys on the old structure, and altering the position of the lavatory and the pantry. Why pretend that you are doing something novel, when all you are doing is to pay out larger benefits and collect larger contributions, and bring all this under one Act? Instead of having these matters dealt with by the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour, the Treasury and the Home Office, you put them all into one and call it social insurance. Let us be truthful about it.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I asked the Solicitor-General last week whether this Ministry was to be merely a paying-out Ministry, and the hon. and learned Gentleman said, very carefully, that he would not like me to regard it as any such thing. The description just given by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), I think, exactly anticipates what he expects from this Bill.

Sir H. Williams: It is in the Bill.

Mr. Lindsay: I know, but there are some things not in the Bill which are to be done. There are certain aspects of rehabilitation in connection with workmen's compensation. I did not hear the speech of the hon. Member who opened this Debate, but I heard the reply from the Financial Secretary, and I think the grounds on which the Government accepted the Amendment were extremely flimsy. The fact that there are to be social welfare committees, replacing those under the old term in the localities, seems to me an additional reason for calling this social insurance.

Sir W. Jowitt: My hon. Friend referred to rehabilitation, but that is not to be the concern of this Ministry. It will be the concern of the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Lindsay: I am quite aware of that, but, if my right hon. Friend will read the speech of the Solicitor-General on Friday and the longer one made earlier in the week, he will see that the hon. and learned Gentleman went to great pains to show that, in workmen's compensation, there would be other matters of concern to this Ministry in addition to the mere paying-out of money. I asked the question on this point specifically on Friday. I support the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) for the reasons he gave, and because the people themselves think of this Ministry in terms of a social insurance Ministry. The term has a similar connotation in the Dominions and in the International Labour Office and I think that merely to change it and give it the much less interesting title of national insurance is a retrograde step.

Mr. Gallacher: I have listened with great surprise to the discussion of this question. I cannot understand how any hon. Member of this Committee can have the temerity to support this proposed change. I can understand, of course, how hon. Members on the other side feel about this proposition—

Sir H. Williams: It was not a proposition of theirs; all sides support it.

Mr. Gallacher: I ask this question: Has the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) or any hon. Members whose names are associated with this Amendment—

Sir H. Williams: May I point out that my name is not associated with this Amendment?

Mr. Gallacher: I made it quite clear that there was a distinction between the hon. Member for South Croydon and those hon. Members who have their names down to this Amendment. Have any of them ever, at any time, suggested that there should be a Minister of National Insurance? Has anybody in this House, or in the country, ever suggested that we should have a Minister of National Insurance? I see the Minister without Portfolio is nodding his head, as if in affirmation, or to suggest that he knows of someone. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know of anyone who has ever proposed that a Minister of National Insurance should be appointed?

What has been the demand in the country and in this House? It is that we should have a new Minister of Social Security. What is being put across the Committee is a trick upon hon. Members and upon the people of this country, but the trick is being exposed by this discussion. Who wants a Minister of National Insurance? What is the sense of going to all the trouble of issuing all the reports and White Papers, or the promises which the Minister of Labour has time and again repeated, in declaring that social security would be guaranteed to the people of this country? Now, we are offered a Minister of National Insurance. It is playing with the matter and playing with the people of this country. I say that we should have a Minister of Social Insurance and Social Security, and that the Bill should be in accord with what is understood by the people of this country, who ought not to be tricked, as they are, obviously, being tricked now.

Mr. A. Bevan: I rather differ from many of my hon. Friends on this side. I think the Government were perfectly correct. The overwhelming weight of argument, and the majority of hon. Members of the Committee, were in favour of this change. I made an almost formal intervention, because I thought the whole thing was finished, but now the Debate is being revived, and by what? By some substantial argument? Not a bit of it, but by political trickery. My hon. Friend behind me makes an attack on this change, but what the change does is to describe accurately the intentions of the Government. What my hon. Friend wants is to deceive the people by words leading them into thinking that they are having what they are not going to get. They are not going to get social security from the proposals of the Government. Then why should the Minister in charge be called the Minister for Social Security?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): We are not discussing the matter of social security.

Mr. Bevan: We are discussing the word "national" against the word "social." We are not having a Minister for Social Insurance; otherwise, the whole thing becomes meaningless. Society includes more than the nation. I know the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) fell into the error of using those words, but why should we follow him? I


know that the word "social" has been used for many years in international conferences, but it has been used very loosely. We are not, in fact, engaged in building up a system of social insurance, but in trying to collect from the poor people of Great Britain, large sums of money to redistribute among the poorer. As a matter of fact, the principal burden of the scheme is going to fall upon the poor people, and we are going to collect money from the poor people to pay the poor people. Then what is the use of trying to discuss a scheme of social insurance? I share my hon. Friend's indignation, but I would ask him how would he describe this Ministry if we had a non-contributory scheme of social security. He would have set such a limit to hyperbole that he would not find a name for it at all.

Mr. Lindsay: The Solicitor-General on Friday said:
I envisage that this Ministry will be engaged continuously in trying to co-ordinate the services that are provided by other Ministries with the information and experience which this Ministry gains in its work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 1702.]

Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend, the other week, made a most modest and impressive speech in describing this proposal. Now, he says it is indeed a scheme of insurance, and the Government have decided, for the reason which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed gave in his Report, but which I have never shared—that people in this country prefer to pay for things rather than have them for nothing. He believed that the principle of insurance was so deeply rooted in the hearts of the British people that they ought to have an insurance system. I accept that, like my hon. Friends here, under duress, but I am not going to practice deception upon my constituents or the people of Great Britain in trying to persuade them that they are going to have things which they are not going to get, and I am astonished at some of my hon. Friends. I am asking for national insurance and for the use of the term "national insurance," which specifically describes for the people the nature of the scheme.

Mr. Gallacher: Will my hon. Friend tell us who wants a Minister of National Insurance? I am not concerned whether this Bill will give social security or not, but with who wants a Minister of National Insurance.

Mr. Bevan: Who, in this country, at present wants a legislative lie? The people of Great Britain—

Mr. Mander: "Ministry of National Insurance" will certainly be a legislative lie, because it covers a great deal more than insurance.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: There will be a task in fitting in administration with certain other fragments of administration, but are you going to describe the bulk of this task in the terms of the minor portions of that task? The overwhelming part of his task will be to collect very large sums of money amounting to £600,000,000 or £700,000,000 from agents and contributors and to redistribute that sum. His administration will be concerned with other forms of assistance and help. This will be one-seventh and he wants to turn the one-seventh into the other six-sevenths. An hon. Member says "Rubbish." I have listened with patience to my hon. Friend for some time but I am bound to inform him that I am shocked when Members of the House of Commons try, by altering the language, to change the content of what they are doing and persuade people outside that we are doing what we are not doing. The people in Great Britain have, by the most insidious propaganda for the last two years, been prepared for something they are not going to get. Having used this propaganda and language, my hon. Friends are fixed to this verbal wheel. Let us be honourable and call the thing what it actually is.

Sir W. Jowitt: Our great national poet asked, "What's in a name?" I am bound to say that the Committee has discussed this matter pretty fully now. I cannot myself think that it matters whether you call this Minister "The Minister of Social Insurance" or "The Minister of National Insurance." In a sense, the scheme that we are going to adopt is the nation's scheme, and in another sense the words "social insurance" have been well known since the work of the I.L.O.; and in the Report of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) following his terms of reference, he described it as a "Report arising out of the work of an inter-departmental Committee on social insurance and allied ser-


vices." We want allied services, and this Bill is to establish the Ministry of Social, or National, Insurance, I do not mind which, and for purposes connected therewith.

Sir W. Beveridge: Will the Minister make it plain to the Committee that it was the Government and not myself who chose the title "social insurance and allied services"?

Sir W. Jowitt: I said that the words were in the terms of reference and I do not think that they were inappropriate or wrong, and there is no reason to apologise for those words. The words "social insurance" would convey something quite definite to my mind on those lines, and equally so the words "national insurance," and I really cannot think why it matters at all.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Why put it in?

Sir W. Jowitt: We put it in because it was in the terms of reference in the Report and was used by the I.L.O. for the last 20 years. On the other hand, the National Health Insurance Act uses the word "national."
I am unable to become excited on the question one way or the other. I do not think that it matters a bit whether you use the word "national" or "social." It is a technical matter on which the Committee will decide. I agree that we have sat here for a long time and heard supported from all quarters of the Committee an Amendment in favour of "national" as against the word "social," and with hardly an exception, or with one exception that was worthy of note, feeling seemed to be that way. That being so, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he would accept the Amendment. On that I think we ought to stand and I ask the Committee to come to a decision and settle the matter one way or the other.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: It is not a matter of particular importance, I agree, but the Government seem to be very ready to adopt the change. They adopted a word which has considerable usage and it was assumed in all quarters that the Government would stand by their own decision. But in the few minutes that I was out of the Chamber the Government seemed to alter their mind. They now desire to change the Title of the Bill.

Are the Government going to come down with their Whips and order the whole Committee to go into the Lobby and change their decision, on the ground of a few people speaking in this Committee for this change? If the Government cannot go back on their statement to-day, the least they can do is to leave the matter entirely to a free vote of the Committee, and let Members of Parliament choose for themselves. If the Government allege that the Committee wants the change, let them put it to the Committee, frankly and fearlessly, and see whether it is the case. If that is not so, I suggest to the Government that the least they can do is to allow the matter to be raised again on the Report stage and consider whether the House would not like to reverse the change. I am used to the somewhat lyrical language of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) but I cannot see any leading of the country "up the garden." The words "social insurance" have become a necessary phrase in this country, and a change would be a grave mistake.

Sir P. Harris: I do not take exception to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I do not want to over-emphasise the importance of the wording of the Ministry; the success of the Department will be judged by results. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) read into the position very much more and attaches great significance to the word "national" instead of "social." He has gone out of his way to condemn the whole Department of which the Minister is to be the head, and hon. Members on the benches opposite cheered him vociferously for the interpretation he put on the new scheme and the new Ministry.

Mr. Bevan: On the contrary. My right hon. Friend, like a good many other hon. Friends, was out of the Chamber at the beginning and did not hear the Debate. I said that as certain intentions are being disclosed by the Government, they ought to use nomenclature which described those intentions.

Sir P. Harris: I heard both speeches of my hon. Friend and I noticed the tremendous applause he received in response to his general conclusion from hon. Members opposite. Some hon. Members have always been critical of the whole idea of social security or social insurance.

Mr. Petherick: The reason why some hon. Members on this side of the Committee and some hon. Members opposite were cheering the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is because we happen to have a preference for words which mean what they say, and not for words which suggest all kinds of schemes which could not be carried out.

Sir P. Harris: If my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) are right, why set up this new Department, with a new staff, a new building, and perhaps two or three Parliamentary Secretaries solely to collect insurance money from the public?

Sir H. Williams: Surely the right hon. Member has read the Bill.

Sir P. Harris: I am glad to see that some of my hon. Friends, the young Tories, have been most vociferous in demanding a Minister of Social Security, and because they want a Minister of Social Security we are going to support this new Ministry. We gave the Bill a Second Reading. In view of the pressure of the character we have had here, and the kind of arguments that have been used, I wish to say that so far as I am concerned, if I am the only one, I shall oppose the change.

Mr. Gallacher: I feel that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) should not be so indignant when he claims that a fraud has been perpetrated on the people of this country.

Mr. Bevan: I said that a fraud will be perpetrated.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member said that people were going to be led to believe that they would receive something they would not get. That is a fraud.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it is time I reminded the Committee that we are discussing the word "national."

Mr. Gallacher: I want to deal with that point and then come to the words "national" and "social." The Member for Ebbw Vale made a very wordy argument about the question of national insurance. He says that the word "national" will more correctly describe the contents of the Bill. But the important

thing is that we want this Ministry not to be static, and tied to the contents of the Bill, and that is the danger of tying the Minister down simply to the contents of the Bill as it stands. That is why we should accept the Amendment. We want the Ministry to be something of a character which is continually developing and extending.

Mr. A. Bevan: Does my hon. Friend think that we are going to be restrained in what they make the Ministry subsequently by verbal restrictions? We want to describe the functions as they are intended to be applicable now. If we change the functions later, we can change the name later.

Mr. Gallacher: The important thing is to start off with the setting up of this Ministry. Certain ideas have been developed in the country and in this House and those ideas have determined that a new Ministry shall be appointed. We do not want the Ministry to be hampered in any possible way. We want it to have the opportunity of reaching up in every direction. That is the importance of not limiting it simply to a question of national insurance, though national insurance may be an essential feature of the Bill. The Ministry, this Committee and the people will be working for a continual expansion of the influence and ramifications of the Ministry. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has taken up a very bad conservative attitude on the question of the word "national" as against "social."

Mr. Bevan: I give it up.

Mr. Tinker: We have wasted a lot of time and have spent over an hour on a matter of little importance which will not alter the Bill at all. I wish to enter my word of protest.

Sir W. Beveridge: This Amendment will make it impossible to call this a "Ministry of Social Security." The White Paper before the Committee is not social security but, by very few changes, it could be made so. Those who are hopeful of making it what the country wants it to be—social security—will, I hope, vote against this Amendment.
Question put, "That the word 'Social' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 170.

Division No. 44.]
AYES.
[2.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Groves, T. E.
Petherick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barnes, A. J.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)
Price, M. P.


Barstow, P. G.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)


Beveridge, Sir W. H.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham- (St. M.)


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Horabin, T. L.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Oxford U.)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hubbard, T. F.
Sexton, T. M.


Buchanan, G.
Hynd, J. B.
Shinwell, E.


Burden, T. W.
Isaacs, G. A.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Jackson, W. F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Chater, D.
Kendall, W. D.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Cluse, W. S.
Key, C. W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cocks, F. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Collindridge, F.
Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J. (Chester-le-Street)
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Leslie, J. R.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Lipson, D. L.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
McKinlay, A. S.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Foster, W.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
White, H. (Derby, N.E.)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mander, G. le M.
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Gallacher, W.
Manning, C. A. G.
Woodburn, A.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Glanville, J. E.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Neal, H.
Mr. Lindsay and


Grenfell, D. R.
Oldfield, W. H.
Mr. E. J. Williams.




NOES.


Agnew, Comdr. P. G.
Fermoy, Lord
Martin, J. H.


Apsley, Lady
Fleming, Squadron-Leader E. L.
Mathers, G.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale)
Mayhew, Lt.- Col. J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Gales, Major E. E.
Molson, A. H. E.


Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B.(P'tsm'th)
George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'b'ke)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Beechman, N. A.
Gibbons, Lt.-Col. W. E.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gibson, Sir C. G.
Morrison, Major J. C. (Salisbury)


Blair, Sir R.
Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.


Boulton, Sir W. W.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Grant-Ferris, Wing-Commander R.
Nield, Lt.-Col. B. E.


Bower, Commdr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Crofton, J. F.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff, E.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hammersley, S. S.
Petherick, M.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Peto, Major B. A. J.


Butler, Rt. Hon. F. A.
Harvey, T. E.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)
Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan-
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cary, R. A.
Hepworth, J.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)
Hill, Prof. A. V.
Pym, L. R.


Colegate, W. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Colman, N. C. D.
Holmes, J. S.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Cook, Lt.-Col. Sir T. R. A. M.(N'f'k,N.)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hudson, Sir A. (Hackney, N.)
Robertson, D. (Streatham)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)


Critchley, A.
Hunter, Sir T.
Ross Taylor, W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Culverwell, C. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Cundiff, F. W.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Salt, E. W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Keatinge, Major E. M.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Keir, Mrs. Cazalet
Sandys, E. D.


De Chair, S. S.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Savory, Professor D. L.


Denville, Alfred
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)


Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.
Lancaster, Lieut.-Col. C. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Sidney, Major W. P.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Levy, T.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.(Kens'gton, N.).
Linstead, H. N.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Eccles, D. M.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Snadden, W. McN.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Llewellin, Col. Rt. Hon. J. J.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Loftus, P. C.
Storey, S.


Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Longhurst, Captain H. C.
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Magnay, T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Etherton, Ralph
Making, Brig,-Gen. Sir E.
Sutcliffe, H.







Tasker, Sir R. I.
Touche, G. C.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Waterhouse, Captain Rt. Hon. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)
Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh, Cen.)
Wright, Mrs. Beatrice F. (Bodmin)


Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)
York, Major C.


Thorne, W.
Wayland, Sir W. A.



Thorneycroft, Maj. G. E. P. (Stafford)
Webbe, Sir W. Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Thurtle, E.
Wells, Sir S. Richard
Major A. S. L. Young and


Tomlinson, G.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)
Mr. Drewe.

Word "National" there inserted.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Williams. In view of the fact that nobody in this country wants a Minister of National Insurance—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order.

Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after "Insurance," insert:
who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure.
I raised this matter on the Second Reading on Friday, and I had a reply from the Solicitor-General, but I was not as much impressed as I am normally by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Until the present Government came into being, it was almost invariably the case that the words to which I refer appeared in Bills of this kind. The last Bill passed by the predecessors of this Government which created a Ministry was the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, when it said:
It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Supply … who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure.…
I have looked up precedents to the best of my ability and I find that when the New Ministries Act was passed in 1916—it received the Royal Assent on 22nd December of that year—it established a Ministry of Labour, a Ministry of Shipping, an Air Board, and a Ministry of Food, and in all these cases these words appeared. They appeared also in the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, and in the New Ministries Act of 1916. So here we have a vast volume of precedents. I presume that the various Ministries responsible for drafting these Bills, spread as they have been over many Governments, must have thought the words had a proper significance. The Deputy Prime Minister on Friday, when I asked when it had been discovered that these words were unnecessary, replied that it was shortly after 1939. I hope, therefore, that we shall have from the Attorney-General

or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury some statement as to the way in which this great discovery was made. It is true there is one exception—the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916. I think it is rather strange, this curious inconsistency with which different people draft these Bills, and I think we ought to do better. There ought to be some common form when you are trying to achieve the same kind of purpose. In the Ministry of Pensions Act it says:
In order to unify the administration of such pensions, grants, and allowances as are hereinafter mentioned, there shall be a Minister of Pensions appointed by His Majesty.…
without reference to His Majesty's pleasure. That is the only exception I have been able to discover. I tried to find out how the Secretary of State for Burma came into being, but an hour's search in the Library beat me. The index to the Statutes said, "See Secretaries of State." Under that I got to "Burma," which said "See Burma," but there was no answer to the question—a complete cross-reference without any answer, for I could not find the Secretary of State. Although there are many references to him in the Government of India Act, there is no reference as to how he came into being. I assume he was created by the Royal Prerogative without an Act of Parliament. As I say, in all these cases, these words have appeared except in the Town and Country Planning Act, this Bill, and the Ministry of Fuel and Power—I think there was an Act for that purpose—

The Attorney-General: Works and Planning.

Sir H. Williams: I apologise—Works and Planning—this is the third example since the Government came in of leaving out these words—

The Attorney-General: The fourth.

Sir H. Williams: Yes, the fourth. They were always kept in before, with that one curious exception of the Ministry of Pensions. I therefore hope that the


Attorney-General will be able to satisfy my mind that there is no malicious conspiracy about leaving out these words.

2.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that so far as possible, where you are seeking to achieve the same purpose, you should use the same words. But it is impossible to have complete uniformity of drafting methods because, naturally, each Bill has its particular draftsman and it is impossible to get complete co-ordination as to what may be analogous matters. It was for that reason that I told the Committee just now that in the last three or four years we have given a good deal of thought to what is the best and most appropriate formula constitutionally to insert into a Bill which seeks to create a new Minister. My hon. Friend is quite right in the examples which he gave, but we came to the conclusion—and I think I shall carry the Committee with me—that the words, "during His Majesty's pleasure," were both unnecessary and had better not be in the Bill. It is a fundamental principle of our constitutional structure that those who hold office under His Majesty hold it at His Majesty's pleasure, unless there is some express statutory condition to the contrary. The most obvious examples are His Majesty's judges, who are removed by His Majesty but who can only be removed if there is an Address to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament. Everybody serves during His Majesty's pleasure unless Parliament puts an affirmative obstruction in the way.

Mr. Molson: Does that apply to civil servants?

The Attorney-General: Yes.

Mr. Molson: What is the position with regard to the Chairman of the Assistance Board?

The Attorney-General: I cannot be positive about everybody, but it certainly applies to civil servants. Parliament sets up an office but the appointment may be made not by His Majesty but by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or another Minister, and sometimes the office is given a definite period of five years. But the category of people I am speaking of are people who are appointed for service under His Majesty

without any statutory period for their dismissal, or a statutory period being assigned to their office. In these cases they can be dismissed at pleasure. When we came to examine past precedents we found that in a number of cases the words, "during His Majesty's pleasure," had been inserted and were unnecessary. It was perfectly obvious that the Minister held office at pleasure whether the words, "at pleasure," were in the Bill or not. I agree that it was patchwork before. It was because we hoped to arrive at a satisfactory formula that these changes were made, and in view of that explanation I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.

Sir H. Williams: In view of the definite and clear-cut statement which has been made by the Attorney-General I will do so in a moment, but I think it is as well that the matter should be on the basis—

Mr. Collindridge: Sing "God save the King."

Sir H. Williams: I do not see the relevance of that remark; it is neither courteous nor relevant to the serious Debate in which we are engaged. We are concerned—

Mr. Collindridge: It is a sheer waste of time.

Sir H. Williams: We are concerned to see what is the express relationship between the head of the State and any servant of the State, whether the head of the State happens to be a monarch or president of a republic or anything else. The meaning of "during His Majesty's pleasure" is perfectly clear. It means on advice to His Majesty, except where His Majesty has to act without constitutional advice, such as dissolution and, possibly, the dismissal of a Prime Minister in exceptional circumstances. There is need for us clearly to understand whether good government or bad is being carried on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, leave out "and of the Secretary of State."
It will not have escaped the attention of the Committee that there is still a good deal of haziness in the minds of Members as to what this Bill actually does or does


not do, and I think this Amendment gives us one opportunity of clearing up the matter. During the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill I asked the Solicitor-General during his reply to the Debate:
May I take it that, roughly speaking, services in kind come under the Ministry of Health and services in cash are transferred to the Ministry of Social Insurance?
My right hon. and learned Friend replied:
Yes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 1701–2.]
That brings up clearly the fact that all the great hospitalisation and treatment services remain with the Minister of Health in England and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland. One of the things this Bill is doing is divorcing payment in cash from treatment. It does not seem to me that that should be done unless it is absolutely necessary, and I submit that it is not absolutely necessary in the case of Scotland. There, you have a Secretary of State who is carrying out not merely the duties of the Minister of Health in England but many other duties, and whose peculiar position is recognised in many of the reorganisations which have been carried out even during the life of this Parliament. In the case of town and country planning these duties are exercised in Scotland through the Secretary of State but not by the Minister of Health in England, and so the combination between town planning and housing, which has been broken in England, has been maintained in Scotland. I submit also that the close connection between treatment and payment which exists in Scotland should be continued there. It is true that advantage has not sufficiently been taken of that close connection in the past, but advantage is being taken of it to an increasing extent.
We all remember in Scotland what has recently been done through the inquiry, initiated by the Secretary of State, with regard to treatment in the South-West of Scotland, in Clydeside and in other areas. From that inquiry the country was able to derive great advantage. For instance, it was ascertained from some 50,000 cases, that one of the two main causes of present-day disability was dyspepsia. This was an important point in dealing with the nutrition policy of

the country. There is an opportunity for more of that kind of thing being done in the future. Maybe it can be done properly by a Minister of Social Security or Social Insurance; it is the function that the Minister will carry out that is important, and not the label that we put upon him. A Minister of National Insurance may be able to carry out an analysis of the great mass of statistical detail which has been collected and centralised. A great mass of information has been collected on the health of the country, through the insurance system, but little advantage has been taken of it, to influence the remedial steps which should be taken in future. But a system whereby a man who is sick in hospital comes under one Minister and, when receiving cash benefits only, comes under another Minister is not necessarily an improvement. The new steps about to be taken could be utilised by the existing Ministry—the Secretary of State.
The remedial developments which are now taking place in Scotland are developments which will be more and more closely concerned with the proposed work of the Minister of National Insurance. For instance, there is the great extension of hospitalisation which is taking place there, all available for remedial treatment. Some 7,000 beds have been added to the hospitals of Scotland. The Secretary of State has utilised the Emergency Medical Scheme as a means of wiping out one of the greatest blots in Scotland before the war, namely, the waiting lists of hospital cases—of people who have been waiting anything from one to three years for attention, for rehabilitation. The control of all the great amount of insurance money and the responsibility for it will pass away from Scotland if this Bill goes through in its present form.
There are some 340 employees on the insurance side who fear that if the Bill goes through they, or many of them, will have to move from Scotland to some place in England. All that weakens the power of responsible administration in parts other than London. This is a bad feature in our present life. It took place in Wales. When I was Minister of Health the question of the Welsh Board of Health was of interest to me. I took certain iconoclastic steps, not with the object of weakening authority in Wales but of strengthening it. For instance, we trans-


ferred to Wales its own town planning. Unfortunately, under a later Bill this was later re-transferred to London. Well, Wales will fight its own battle, but until we have stronger reasons than we have had up to now we should not consent in silence to the transfer of this piece of administration out of Scotland, where it is properly used, and where it can liaise completely with other parts of Scottish administration, into England.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. McKinlay: I think every Scottish Member will endorse what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. I do not know what sort of battle may have been on behind closed doors. I cannot see the Secretary of State for Scotland willingly handing a half of his Department away to remote control in London. If we ever have any trouble with the administration of widows' and orphans' pensions, or the old age pension, we have very little difficulty in contacting someone with responsibility. I have had during the war some experience of remote control of the Ministry of Food and of the inrush of the Ministery of Works and Buildings into Scotland. We are not asking to add to our powers but we certainly do not want any of them taken away. This will arouse considerable feeling throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. They do not seem to realise exactly what is taking place.
If the Secretary of State were nothing more than a grafter and did not like work, I could understand him sitting back and permitting half his responsibility being removed to the South, but the present Secretary of State is not a fellow like that. I should like to hear the arguments that convinced him that this change was necessary. I do not want the Minister to give away any stable secrets but, if we are to be asked to give our consent to a change like this, it will take a good deal of convincing before he will get the consent of the Scottish Members. If there had been any maladministration, one could see the sense of it. The administration of National Health Insurance has always been centred in Edinburgh. I have no great regard for Edinburgh, as Edinburgh—my Scottish colleagues will know what I mean—but it is easier to

lift the telephone and get into touch with someone with responsibility at St. Andrew's House than to try to get through the maze not only of the telephones but of corridors in London. I have never been able to contact a Minister in London, other than the Scottish Office, in any Department since I arrived here. We can go to St. Andrew's House and the man at the door knows us all and sees that we get access to the Minister. The prospect of the barrier of flunkeys that we find in a London Department applied to Scotland is too horrible to contemplate. Scottish Members will listen with interest to whatever my right hon. Friend has to say, but I want to warn him in advance. I think Welsh Members are entitled to line up—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss Wales.

Mr. Rhys Davies: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that the Welsh Board of Health administration is under the Minister of Health and that the work of that Department will come to the right hon. Gentleman?

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but it is not in Order to discuss it here.

Mr. McKinlay: I was not going to discuss Wales, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was permitted to make a passing reference to the fact that the good work for Wales had been undone by a repeat performance of what has taken place here. I was only going to suggest that the Welsh Members are entitled to support Scottish Members on this occasion. I am not in the market place asking them for a quid pro quo, but I cannot, for six months in the year, propagate the idea of the same facilities for Wales as we have in Scotland and then lightly let the facilities depart from Scotland without a protest. I have convinced almost every Welsh Member that a Secretary of State is more desirable for the Welsh nation—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a point that we cannot discuss here. Anything to do with a Secretary of State for Wales is completely out of Order.

Mr. McKinlay: Possibly I am at fault for introducing it, but you, Mr. Williams, interrupted me, otherwise I should not


have said half as much about Wales as I have said. I had no intention of discussing Wales at all. I hope the Minister's reply will be satisfactory. We do not want one Minister saying one thing and another another, and loyal Labour Members being compelled to vote against the Government again. I hope that the statement that we get will be one with the authority of the Minister behind it. I am sure my colleages will await what the Minister has to say with some curiosity.

Sir W. Jowitt: I hope I can give some reassurance to the Scottish Members, and, incidentally, also to Welsh Members. The object of setting up this Ministry is to make one Minister solely responsible for the various schemes of social insurance, assistance, including supplementary pensions and workmen's compensation. If the Amendment were accepted, we should get a complete division of authority, and this would result. The new Minister would be responsible for health insurance payments in England and Wales, for unemployment insurance payments throughout Great Britain, contributory pensions in England and Wales, assistance other than by way of supplementary pensions in Great Britain, supplementary pensions in England and Wales, old age over 70 pensions in England and Wales and workmen's compensation in Great Britain. That would be a quite unworkable set-up. What I propose is this. In the first place, it seems to me that the main principle upon which the new Ministry must work is devolution. It must decentralise. It must leave, as far as possible, Scottish officers sitting in Scotland to deal with Scottish problems with the very minimum of interference and reference to England. As far as the 340 officers who feared that they may find themselves removed from Edinburgh to London are concerned, many of them may be married people and I can understand that it would be a serious matter for them, but I do not think there is the slightest reason to fear any such thing. My intention, as far as I have anything to do with it, is that Scottish problems shall be settled in Scotland. I think I can do something to improve upon the present lay-out very considerably.
It is so easy to say that these problems all come under the Secretary of State for Scotland to-day but I would ask the Committee to consider in what sense they do.

Let us always distinguish between medical benefit and sickness benefit. They are terms of art and they are defined in the Act of 1936. Medical benefit means treatment and attendance, sickness benefit means, of course, periodical payments which, after a time, give rise to disablement benefit and so on. Both benefits are, in some sense, at present, under the Secretary of State for Scotland but observe in what sense. Medical benefit is, of course, run through insurance committees and the Secretary of State for Scotland has power to give directions and instructions to insurance committees about this, that and the other matter. Sickness benefit to-day is run through approved societies, and the Secretary of State for Scotland has the right to make rules and regulations concerning approved societies, but the link that ought to be provided by the Secretary of State having ultimate control of both these functions fails in its effect altogether by reason of the fact that he has not got control at the critical point of time.
For instance, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) last week referred to the fact that there were shelves upon shelves of medical reports which were not used, and that is true, because these reports belong to 101 different approved societies and there is no system whereby they communicate either to the Ministry of Health in England or to the Secretary of State for Scotland the conclusions that they ought to draw from the vast mass of statistics which they accumulate. If, for instance, an epidemic is breaking out in one of our great cities in England or Scotland there is no means by which the approved societies can communicate with the Ministry of Health. If there is one area of a town which shows a greater incidence of disease, which may point to bad drains or bad housing conditions, there is no system whereby they communicate in any way with the Ministry of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland. Those Ministers have to rely for their medical statistics on other methods altogether. They have their own clinics and hospitals. In so far as their own doctors are consulted, information filters through but this great source of potential information, which might be of such enormous value in enabling health visitors to carry out their job, is denied them. Under the new dispensation I


hope that this will happen. If you are to have a co-ordinated system of paying these sickness benefits, which, of course, are paid on the faith of doctors' certificates, I hope we will have a department which will see to it that these statistics are analysed and gone through and checked so that useful information can be obtained, and the department will be run in collaboration between the Minister of National Insurance and the Secretary of State for Scotland, so that we shall be able to give him what he has never been able to have before, the mass of information which comes from the payment of sickness benefit, based, as it must be, on doctors' certificates. It may be found that a large number of people in a particular area, at a particular time, are getting benefits. That would be at once a pointer, and the medical officer would look into it to see what is the matter. That is something which you cannot do to-day.
2.45 p.m.
Therefore, without being able to give details—the details have not yet been worked out—arrangements will be made to enable Scottish business to be settled on the spot with the minimum of reference to the headquarters of the Ministry in London, and that the Ministry in Scotland will keep in the closest touch with the officers of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the Minister of Health for Scotland. By no means one of the least important results of paying out these monies will be to enable the Secretary of State to have all the possible information to enable him to perform his part of the concern, that is to say, the medical benefits of treatment and attendance. What I have said about devolution to Scotland of course applies to other areas of England and Wales. I am satisfied that it is only on these lines that this Ministry will be able to function properly and well. I need hardly say that I shall keep in the closest touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland in this matter, and I hope that, from what I have said, the Committee will realise that the Amendment would not enable us to carry out our idea of a unified service.

Mr. McKinlay: I must confess to disappointment, for the Minister has not said a word justifying the proposed change. The Bill proposes to transfer to London work which is at the moment efficiently

done in Edinburgh. I am satisfied that the machinery existing in Scotland is ample to give the Secretary of State all the information he wants. Nothing has been said against the present system of the Secretary of State being responsible for old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, and health insurance. The bigger scheme may be more comprehensive, but no one will convince me that the capacity of the Department in Edinburgh is not such that it could not cope with the additional responsibility. We shall have to divide the Committee on this matter because we cannot allow it to go without protest. The devolution indicated by the Minister simply means that whoever is responsible in Scotland will hold only a secondary responsibility, and will be able to do nothing without consulting headquarters in London. It is no narrow nationalism which prompts me to take up this attitude. Scotland has at the moment an efficient machine, and we have been given no adequate reason why it should be scrapped. I am not prepared to put a new engineer in charge of that machine or to agree to putting the Secretary of State in the position of a second engineer who is unable to do anything without reference to remote control in Whitehall. Scottish Members are not going to stand for that, and I hope that my hon. Friends will force the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a statement a few minutes ago to the effect that the 340 members of the Scottish health insurance staff would remain in Edinburgh to carry on under the new plan. That will be satisfactory to hon. Members representing Scotland, and I would ask him therefore whether the same principle will apply to the staff of the Welsh Board of Health at Cardiff?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot ask that question on this Amendment.

Mr. Davies: I raised the issue because the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned it several times. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me saying that he is mistaken in stating that the Ministry of Health does not gather information from approved societies about the health of the people. The Ministry of Health and the Scottish


Board of Health from time to time call upon those societies to give information as to the health of their members, especially in relation to certain categories. I suppose that, on the whole, it will be financially beneficial to the Scottish and Welsh insured population to have a unified scheme for the whole country, but there is no doubt that this Bill is a serious blow against devolution for Scotland and for Wales. Whatever may happen regionally, the whole of this vast insurance business will in the end, for good or ill, be centralised in London.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: In resisting the Amendment, my right hon. and learned Friend dealt with medical benefits and sickness benefits, indicating that the first were benefits in kind and the second payments in cash. He also said that medical benefits were in the hands of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, whereas sickness benefits were in the hands of the approved societies. He said that he could give Scottish Members some assurance and that the new Ministry of Social Insurance would be able, since they would pay out sickness benefits, to gather all the necessary statistics so as to be able to advise the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State as to where the greatest amount of sickness benefits were being paid out, so that new and increased medical benefits could be given. Surely that was no argument against the Amendment. It was merely saying that where sickness benefits were on the increase, the new Ministry would have such evidence before it that it could send a message post haste to the Secretary of State for Scotland, if the increase was in Scotland, and advise him that something ought to be done by way of improved medical benefits. It seems to me that we are seeking to build up far too unwieldy a machine. It would be better if the payment of sickness benefits remained in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland and, instead of being paid through the approved societies, should be paid through local insurance officers under the Secretary of State. He would thus have the statistics in his hands much earlier than he could get them from the new Ministry. My right hon. and learned Friend has not convinced us that the centralisation proposed in the Bill is a good thing. Many of us believe that in the days to come, if we are to build up a

better way of life, we shall have to go in for the process of devolution rather than of centralisation.

Mr. Watt: There were two points in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply. The first was that, if he was not the supreme authority for the United Kingdom in all these matters, things would not work very well. We have plenty of instances in Scotland of powers which are carried out by a Minister in England being carried out by the Secretary of State. I see no reason why, under this scheme, the powers which are exercised by the Minister of National Insurance in England could not be exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Second, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that if matters were all gathered together in his hands, the great quantity of statistical information could be put to better use than if we had matters carried out in Scotland under the Secretary of State. I do not understand that point. Statistics can be got out and sent to Scotland, and I imagine that the Secretary of State is as well able as any Member of the Government to appreciate statistics and to put them to good use.

Mr. Kirkwood: I listened to the Minister trying in his suave manner to get Scottish Members to believe that there was no robbery going on here—robbing Scotland of its independence. Scotland is watching this matter to see how the House will handle the situation. This means that Acts of Parliament that are to apply to England are to apply also to Scotland. We have had to pay the penalty many times of trying to make Acts of Parliament that were intended for England, operate in Scotland. The outstanding case was the Rent Act. I am giving this as an illustration. We have laws of our own in Scotland, we have songs of our own and a language of our own. We are a distinct race. We have a Secretary of State, a Lord Advocate and a Solicitor-General of our own, proving that our laws are not the same laws as those of England. The Rent Act which was passed here provided that any increase must be signed by the owner. That is all right in England, but it does not apply in the same way in Scotland.
In my constituency, Sir Robert McAlpine owned 10,000 houses, and the


rents were dealt with by a factor. It was the factor who signed and not the owner. We challenged that. We brought it to the House of Lords, and we won, so that the people in Scotland had the right to retain the rent for nine months because it was illegal and because it had been signed, not by the owner of the houses but by the factor. That is an outstanding instance of how the laws differ between Scotland and England, and I do not want the same thing to happen here. I am not putting in a special plea on behalf of the present Secretary of State; I am putting in a plea for Scotland; and I say we are not going to be relegated to second place to England. That is what is being done to-day. It is being done in a nice fashion, but the same arguments have been put forward time and again over the last 20 years when attempts have been made to tie Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, to London. I hope that the Scottish Members will divide the Committee on the question.

3.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: While being very appreciative of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister-Designate, approached the question, I cannot say that he has brought complete conviction either to my heart or to the hearts of other hon. Members sitting on these benches. What was his chief argument? It was that we were moving over from the approved societies, which he said had not been affected by the new position. That is to say, the matter has been changed from a functional to a geographical basis. The administration is now to be on a geographical basis. It is true that in the past the Secretary of State has not received all the aid he might have done from the approved societies, though he has the power to call for such aid or information, and, in many cases, has called for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) said that when the Secretary of State wishes to do so, he can call on the approved societies for the information he desires, and the fact that he has not done so, up to the present, is not an argument against the machine. We all know that in a change-over of this kind new contacts are picked up and existing channels of information are destroyed. In spite of everything, I think we shall have to register our views. We

cannot accept the explanation given as completely satisfactory.

Mr. Gallacher: In Scotland there is a very strong desire for a continual advance in the administration that exists, towards further powers that will give us an opportunity for representation of our own. In connection with this matter it is proposed to take away certain powers from Scotland, instead of giving powers to Scotland. I would particularly call the attention of Welsh Members who are making a fight for a Welsh Department to this position. It is important that they should know it. I would ask them to consider how serious it is, when everybody feels that there should be this development, that, instead of extending the functions of the administration, the opportunity should be taken on a Bill of this kind to limit the administrative powers of the Scottish Department. I would appeal not only to Welsh Members, but to English Members also who have, for a considerable time, suffered as subjects of a sort of dependency of Scotland, or claimed to be oppressed by the Scottish influx into England, to realise the importance, even for England, of the greatest possible measure of administrative power being maintained and extended in Scotland. I am certain the Welsh Members will see the importance of supporting this Amendment, but I would ask the English Members to realise the importance and the value, from the point of view of the whole administration of this country, of ensuring that the greatest measure of administrative power is left in the Scottish Department.

Commander Galbraith: I have listened very intently to this Debate, and I think I can claim to be just as good a Scotsman as any other hon. Member who has spoken. I am wondering whether we are not being led astray by this nationalistic spirit of which so many hon. Members have spoken. I think the only criterion by which we should judge this situation is that of efficiency. Is the new set-up going to be more efficient than the old set-up? I cannot see that we are going to get any increase in efficiency by dividing this business in two. I feel also that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would never have agreed to this scheme if he had not been convinced in his own heart that this was the efficient and proper way. From that point of view, I rather doubt


whether by dividing on this question we should be doing the correct thing in the interests of the country as a whole. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends to regard the matter more from the efficiency point of view than from the nationalistic point of view.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have been induced to rise to my feet by the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). His plea to Welshmen has brought me to my feet. The point now being argued is that we are in a reconstructive period of social insurance—national insurace as it may now be called—that there shall be pockets within the country controlled by a Minister other than the Minister responsible. I thought my hon. Friends from Scotland would have been convinced by their past experience. They ought to have known that supplementary pensioners in Scotland under the present system get, on an average, 2s. a week less than supplementary pensioners in England and Wales. I wonder how far that is due to this administration once removed from the general direction. I want to submit that if we are to have one department in Scotland and to have, perhaps, in the dim distant future, some other department in another part, it means that we shall have three departments controlling this national social insurance with, as it well may be, three different standards—three different rates of benefit for the same contribution. All that is bound to arise if we departmentalise this national scheme. I know of no Welsh remedy for poverty and I know of no Scotch remedy for poverty. I am not interested in nationalism of any sort. I am amazed that my hon. Friend should take up such a reactionary point of view.
I take the view that here is a system which places upon every citizen in this country the same obligation, irrespective of contributions. In respect of those contributions, every citizen, whether he is in Wales, Scotland or England, is entitled to the same standard of benefit and to the same efficient service. That can be given only if the scheme is controlled from one centre. If it is to be controlled from three centres there will be three different standards of benefit, three different systems of working the scheme, and three different rates of reward to the people employed. I hope that the Amendment

will not be pressed because, so far as I can see, a case for it has not been made out.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. McKinlay: I do not like to hear my hon. Friend from Wales talking about the case not having been made out. One might at least expect that the case should be listened to before it is condemned. I am satisfied that my hon. Friend never heard the case put up for the Amendment and did not hear the Minister's reply. We are not asking for anything in addition, but simply that the administration of pensions and national health insurance in Scotland should remain as it is at the moment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: What is the case for it?

Mr. McKinlay: The case is that it is a more efficient method of administration. If my hon. Friend can find any consolation in remote control by a Government Department, he is about the only Member who can. We are asking that the system which by its efficiency justifies its retention within the framework—

Mr. Ness Edwards: With different rates of benefit.

Mr. McKinlay: I am not discussing the rates of benefit, and I am surprised that the Deputy-Chairman permitted my hon. Friend to make that intervention. It is not the Scottish Office which determines the U.A.B., which is not under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Office. If there is a disparity, as my hon. Friend suggests, the responsibility does not lie in Edinburgh. One would think, to hear my hon. Friend, that we were asking for something based upon a narrow Scottish nationalism. We are simply asking that the efficient machine in Edinburgh should be utilised for the purpose of administering the new scheme. If my hon. Friend had been in and heard the Minister, he would have heard him make the promise of devolution, of opening offices in Edinburgh or using the existing offices, and of putting a new engineer in charge. All we say is that the people in charge of this service at the moment in Edinburgh, and in Scotland, are the most efficient people to deal with it, without in any way interfering with the autonomy of either England, Wales, or Scotland, or without even postulating that you can cure


poverty by a narrow nationalism. We know all those things, and we do not want to be lectured on them. I certainly object to a Member coming in when a Debate is half-way through and saying that no case has been made out, when he never heard the case. I am satisfied that if he had heard the Minister's reply he is honest enough to have admitted that the Minister-Designate never replied to the case that was put at all.

Mr. Ness Edwards: On a point of Order. My hon, Friend persists in making the statement that I have not heard the case made out. I want to point out that I have heard five or six hon. Members speak, and that it was at the invitation of one of my hon. Friend's own colleagues, a Member for Scotland, that a Welsh Member arose. Surely he is misrepresenting the position.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): That is not a point of Order; neither is it in Order for an hon. Member, because he complains that another hon. Member has not been here to listen to his previous arguments, to endeavour to repeat them to the Committee.

Mr. McKinlay: I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend did not hear my eloquence on a previous occasion. By his own words, he conveyed the impression that he did not know what we were discussing. He implied that we are asking for something new when, as a matter of fact, we are simply asking that the power which we have in Scotland should be left to us. That is all.

Commander Galbraith: Is not the hon. Member rather assuming that the whole procedure as it exists to-day will be broken up? Is it not rather the case that the system will remain, but instead of hav-

ing two captains to run the ship there will be only one?

Mr. McKinlay: I do not think there will be an extra first mate or an extra second mate. I have had sufficient experience of the Department in Edinburgh, and as a member of a local authority, to know that it is a backward step to try to set up an administration without the power to take decisions. The hon. and gallant Member who interrupted me is an old naval commander. He knows that if a sub. took a decision involving the safety of the ship without consulting my hon. and gallant Friend there would be hell to pay. I have been a seaman myself and I know what happens when there are too many bosses. If we have too many bosses administering the scheme the result will be the same. The Minister's suggestion of devolution frightens me if it means that when district or regional complaints have to be dealt with there will be nobody in power to take a decision other than at Whitehall.
I have already said that Whitehall frightens me even by the look of it. If you want to contact the Minister you can do it within two hours in Scotland, but if you want to do it in London—well, one is lucky to find the Minister in London. One may have to go to Paris, Moscow or Washington. If he is in London, by the time one has got all the flunkeys, doorkeepers and side-steppers out of the way, the day is finished. We intend to divide the Committee on this matter, which is not one of narrow nationalism but of sheer, practical politics. I ask for as big a measure of support for the Amendment as we can muster.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 26.

Division No. 45.]
AYES.
[3.20 p.m.


Agnew, Comdr. P. G.
Bossom, A. C.
Cadogan, Major Sir E.


Albery, Sir Irving
Boulton, Sir W. W.
Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)


Apsley, Lady
Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Cary, R. A.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Castlereagh, Viscount


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Broad, F. A.
Charleton, H. C.


Barnes, A. J.
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Chater, D.


Barstow, P. G.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Clarke, Colonel R. S.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cluse, W. S.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Cobb, Captain E. C.


Batch, Major F. W.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Colegate, W. A.


Beechman, N. A.
Burden, T. W.
Collindridge, F.


Benson, G.
Burke, W. A.
Colman, N. C. D.


Blair, Sir R.
Burton, Col. H. W.
Conant, Major R. J. E.




Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hynd, J. B.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Isaacs, G. A.
Price, M. P.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Jackson, W. F.
Profumo, Colonel J. D.


Critchley, A.
James, Wing-Com. A. (Well'borough)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Culverwell, C. T.
Jewson, P. W.
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)


Cundiff, F. W.
John, W.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


De Chair, S. S.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'gm'n)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Denville, Alfred
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Richards, R.


Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Robertson, D. (Streatham)


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.
Keatinge, Major E. M.
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (M'cham)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Keir, Mrs. Cazalet
Ross Taylor, W.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Kendall, W. D.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Salt, E. W.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gt'n, N.)
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)


Dunn, E.
Kimball, Major L.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Eccles, D. M.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Savory, Professor D. L.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selkirk)


Edwards Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Liddall, W. S.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Linstead, H. N.
Sidney, Major W. P.


Emmett, C. E. G. C.
Lipson, D. L.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Lloyd Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Snadden, W. McN.


Etherton, Ralph
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Ladywood)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Everard, Sir W. Lindsay
Loftus, P. C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fermoy, Lord
Longhurst, Captain H. C.
Storey, S.


Fleming, Squadron-Leader E. L.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


Foster, W.
Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Gibbons, Lt.-Col. W. E.
McEntee, V. La T.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gibson, Sir C. G.
Magnay, T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F


Glanville, J. E.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Gluckstein, Col. L. H.
Manning, C. A. G.
Sykes, Maj-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.


Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Mathers, G.
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Graham, Captain A. C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Grant-Ferris, Wing Commander R.
Molson, A. H. E
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Gretton, J. F.
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Thorne, W.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tinker, J. J.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)
Morrison, R. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Touche, G. C.


Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Groves, T. E.
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
Turton, R. H.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)
Nall, Sir J.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Neal, H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hammersley, S. S.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)
White, H. (Derby, N.E.)


Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Nield, Major B. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan-
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hepworth, J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pearson, A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Petherick, M.
York, Major C.


Holmes, J. S.
Peto, Major B. A. J.
Young, Major A. S. L. (Partick)


Hudson, Sir A. (Hackney, N.)
Pilkington, Captain R. A.



Hulbert, Wing-Commander N. J.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Hunter, Sir T.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Mr. Pym and Mr. Drewe.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Power, Sir J. C.





NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'thm'tn)


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Hubbard, T. F.
Viant, S. P.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh Cen.)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Daggar, G.
Leslie J. R.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
MacLaren, A.
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Maclean, N. (Govan)



Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Gallacher, W.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot and


Hardie, Mrs. Agnes
Thomas, I. (Keighley)
Mr. McKinlay.


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Rhys Davies: We have just had a Division on a point in Clause 1, and I hope I may be permited to ask the right

hon. and learned Gentleman one or two specific questions on the Clause itself. I think it is worth repeating that the insured population in Scotland and Wales will be better off financially by being included in a unified scheme rather than if Wales,


England and Scotland were placed in separate sections. But what worries some of us—and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to enlighten us on this—is whether the administration and determinations on claims, apart from the collection of contributions and the actual payment of benefits, will be dealt with on a regional basis in Scotland, and the same applies to Wales, of course. I would not like, for instance, to see the Scottish region centred in Carlisle or the Welsh region centred in Bristol or Liverpool.

3.30 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot see how any Minister could possibly answer the hon. Member on this Clause, because the question of Wales does not arise on it, so far as I can understand.

Mr. Davies: I do not want to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but when the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes over the whole of the insurance scheme, including Wales, he must cover the Welsh Board of Health which is now within the Ministry of Health. The whole of the insured population of Wales now come under the Ministry of Health, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's new Department takes them over in due course.

Sir W. Jowitt: The new Department takes over a particular part—sickness benefit and medical benefit—but if the Welsh Board of Health is responsible for medical benefit, the Welsh Board of Health will remain in the position of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Davies: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department takes over some of the functions of the Ministry of Health he is taking over the Welsh Board of Health at the same time.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must stick to my point. In the general matter, Scotland has a separate administration. Wales may have for one particular benefit, but it is not separate in the same way as Scotland is. Therefore, we cannot discuss Wales as a separate unit for all these things which are being taken over.

Mr. Davies: Then I want to raise the case of Scotland—and my arguments will apply equally to Wales. The hon. Mem-

ber for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) will appreciate the argument in favour of retaining administration in Scotland better if I put it this way. Many approved societies include members from Scotland but their central offices are in England. For illustration nearly all the large friendly approved societies are in Manchester. A large number of trade union approved societies have their central administration in Manchester and London. A great number of these approved societies which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is taking over have members in Scotland, and that in spite of the fact that their offices are in England. When he establishes his new scheme he can, if he wishes, regard Scotland for the first time as a region on its own.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must remind the Committee that we have already discussed this matter very fully. I am perfectly sure that we cannot discuss devolution again on the question "That the Clause stand part," and particularly not on this Clause.

Mr. Davies: All I wanted to know was whether there will be a regional office in Scotland—I think I am entitled to discuss that—and whether that regional office, under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's new Department, will be situated in Edinburgh, as is the case with the Scottish Board of Health at present. I hope that I shall be able to discuss a similar position in regard to Wales at a later stage.

Sir W. Jowitt: If I am entitled to answer, I can do so in one word. The answer is, yes.

Mr. Graham White: I and my hon. Friends very cordially welcome this Bill, and especially this Clause. We particularly welcome paragraph (b), under which
the functions of the Minister of Labour and National Service with respect to unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance
are taken over by the new Minister. The cordiality of our welcome will be increased if advantage can be taken of this occasion to deal with the anomalous constitutional position of the Unemployment Assistance Board.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now trying to discuss an


Amendment which was ruled out because it was out of Order. It is certainly not in Order to discuss the Unemployment Assistance Board.

Mr. White: I am not sufficiently new to the procedure of the House not to know that that was a device that one should not employ. But this is a matter to which we attach great importance. Unless there is an opportunity to discuss it, we shall seek the opportunity, on this Bill and on every other occasion which presents itself, to make clear our views.

Mr. Tinker: Am I to take it that the Minister will be able to deal with all questions arising from supplementary pensions, and that on such matters we should put our points to him?

Sir W. Jowitt: Sir W. Jowitt indicated assent.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Are we to take it from that indication that all these matters, in relation to Scotland, pass under the control of the new Ministry, and that that Ministry will take over all such matters, which now have to be taken up with the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Sir W. Jowitt: That is so. The Bill enables all these matters to be transferred to the new Minister.

Mr. Maclean: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that is a breach of the Treaty of Union with Scotland? Are the Government going to break treaties as Germany did?

Mr. Ness Edwards: What I am anxious about is whether the administration of pensions will be completely under the jurisdiction of the new Minister and will not be dealt with outside his Department. Can I have satisfaction on that point? There is a second point. Are we to take it that in each area a regional administration will be established, and that what the Minister really will do is to expand that regional type of administration to carry out the functions that are delegated to him by this Clause?

Sir W. Jowitt: One must be careful in using the word "regional," because it has awkward connotations in some people's minds, but in the sense in which the hon. Member used the word, the answer is, yes. The new Minister will have regional organisations in various parts of the

country. With regard to the other question, on the main Bill we shall have to discuss the position which we cannot discuss to-day, namely, the relationship that the new Minister will have with the Assistance Board. I cannot anticipate that; it is a major matter which will have to be considered then. But, in so far as supplementary pensions are under Ministerial control, they will, of course, come under the control of the new Minister—that is, without prejudice to the question, that we have to discuss, of what the relationship of the Assistance Board and the new Minister will be.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Oath of allegiance and official oath.)

Amendment made: In page 1, line 17, leave out "Social," and insert "National."—[Mr. Ralph Etherton.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Remuneration, appointment of officers, expenses, etc.)

Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "any," and insert "a."
There are two Amendments down to this Clause and my name is attached to both, but the second one is the one which, I think, Mr. Williams, you have called. After my hon. Friends and I had put it down, it seemed to me that the word "a" was better than "the." This Amendment should be read in conjunction with the Amendments to Clause 4:
Page 2, line 18, leave out 'any,' and insert 'the.'
Page 2, line 25, leave out from 'member,' to end of Clause.
We had a Debate on Friday on whether there should be more than one Parliamentary Secretary under this Ministry, and I urged very strongly that one ought to be enough. Other hon. Members agreed with me, but I do not know what view the Government take. I am feeling a little hopeful that they do not want to see that spectacle of the other House being filled with retired gentlemen at £1,500 a year, which is one of the delightful possibilities under this Bill, and, in the cheerful anticipation that some Minister is going to answer me kindly on this occasion, I beg to move.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: I wish to support the Amendment. I prefer the Amendment which you called, Mr. Williams, to the one which stood in my name. Obviously "a" is more specific than "the" and will enable only one Parliamentary Secretary to be appointed, instead of one or more. The object of the Amendment which I am supporting is to remove uncertainty and make the intention clear. I feel sure that no hon. Members will want to leave the matter so that any number of Parliamentary Secretaries may be appointed. Clearly, in this instance, one is sufficient, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: The Government are clear that this Minister will not require more than one Parliamentary Secretary, and this being so, we are agreed that it is desirable that it should appear on the face of the Bill, and we accordingly recommend the Committee to accept this and the consequential Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir H. Williams: Hon. Members will realise that the Parliamentary Secretary is appointed by the Minister, but how Parliamentary Secretaries come into being is a little curious. The Prime Minister invites His Majesty to approve of them and, after these motions have been gone through, I believe that the Minister, under a seal, appoints them. Here there is no reference either to the Prime Minister or to His Majesty. It is just a flat appointment by the Minister, and I am not certain about it. I have not had time to look it up, but I think it is unusual. In the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1916, Chapter 68, the thing is rather differently worded, and I do not know whether the point has been considered. For example, in Section 9, Sub-section (2) it says:
Notwithstanding anything in any Act, an additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary may be appointed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
"Appointed to," not "by." Will the Attorney-General be good enough to explain? Like me, he likes these things done tidily, and, when we are trying to do the same kind of thing, we ought always to do it in the same kind of way, and I am just wondering why the Govern-

ment have chosen those words "appointed by the Minister" instead of "to the Minister." As I understand it, at the present time, though the actual formality of appointing is done by the Minister, the Prime Minister says he has a vacancy and invites somebody to fill it. As a matter of wisdom and courtesy, he probably does consult the senior Minister, but the appointment is by the Prime Minister subject to the approval of His Majesty. Those words of the Act of 1916 are rather interesting, because "appointed to" clearly indicates somebody else, and not that the Minister makes the appointment. I should like the Attorney-General to look into the point and let us have his view on the matter.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I was very pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman looked kindly at the Amendment for one Parliamentary Secretary, because I understand that, since the war began, we have established eight new Government Departments, and, of course, this present Bill will make the ninth. At the beginning of the war, we had 26 Ministers; now we have 39. We had 24 Parliamentary Secretaries in 1939; we now have 40. Consequently, the House of Commons has to be careful what it is doing, lest the majority of the Members of this House might become Government servants, which, of course, would be a calamity and take us right into the totalitarian stage. I am pleased that this new Ministry is being set up, but I would not like to see it so overburdened with under-secretaries to the extent that it might be challenged later on by those who are not enamoured of the Ministry at all.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I think it is all right. I think the Sub-section to which he refers deals with the case of the existing enactments, so that there could be—I will not beg the question—more than one Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, because the Act provides that an additional Under-Secretary may be appointed to the Secretary of State.

Sir H. Williams: To the Secretary of State, not by him.

The Attorney-General: This Act may not be very happily worded, but, in Section 10, one sees a general power given to any Minister to appoint Secretaries.

Sir H. Williams: But not Parliamentary Secretaries.

The Attorney-General: Well, I am not sure. I hope my hon. Friend will not press for an alteration. We will look into it. We think we have it right, but if we have not we will see what can be done.

CLAUSE 4.—(Capacity to sit in House of Commons.)

Amendments made: In page 2, line 18, leave out "any", and insert "the."

In line 21, leave out from "member" to end of Clause.—(Sir H. Williams.)

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Transfer of functions by Orders in Council.)

Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, leave out from "1941," to end of paragraph.
The words proposed to be left out are:
other than powers or duties conferred or imposed under Sections thirty-five to forty- three of the National Health Insurance Act, 1936 (which relates to the administration of medical benefit)
This Amendment is of importance. I am not certain whether it is a desirable Amendment or not, but it raises the very important question, "Are you going to separate entirely the responsibility for medical benefit from that of cash benefit?" Before a man is entitled to sick pay, the doctor has to come into the picture. There has to be certification that he is qualified for a weekly cash payment, or any payments that may be authorised under the existing Acts or any future Acts. This Committee should think before it decides that the right place for medical benefit is outside the scope of the authority of the Minister of National Insurance. I should have thought that, on many grounds of administration, he should have taken with him the administration of medical benefit. The fact that the Minister of Health has a general responsibility for health, does not really mean that the Minister of Health should be concerned with the administration of medical

benefit. His is the sphere of preventive medicine, and of seeing that a town has good sewers, a pure water supply, and that nuisances are abated—all the requirements of the Disraeli Public Health Act, 1875.
That work is not very closely connected with the organisation of a lot of doctors not engaged in public health services at all, but in the normal work of attending the sick in hospitals or in their own homes. It is quite distinct from the position of medical officers of health. I see no prejudice to the Minister of Health, if this work goes to the Minister concerned with health insurance. It would be better that the Minister should take these powers with him. In any event, it is unfortunate that he is prevented by the words of this Clause, without a further Amendment, from taking them with him. If we leave out the words which my Amendment suggests omitting, it will still leave a decision to be made in the future, after consultation. The Bill says, "Any of the powers" and on Friday, when talking about Orders in Council, the Deputy Prime Minister seemed to think that these paragraphs said "all the powers." They do not. There is to be choice hereafter by the Government of the day of the powers in paragraphs (a) to (g) that are, by Orders in Council, to be transferred to another Minister. If my Amendment is carried, the Government will have months to make up their mind whether the administration of medical benefit is to remain. All I am asking at the moment is that they should not make a final decision but leave the door open. This is in order that they may make a decision different from that contained in the Bill. The Amendment merely opens the door of opportunity. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that there is a case, at least, for reconsideration, and on those grounds I move the Amendment.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: I support the Amendment, if for no other reason, because it leaves the matter open. If the Clause stands as it is, the decision is finally taken and nothing further can be done without further legislation. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to accept the Amendment in order to leave the matter open for a decision later, after further consideration.

Mr. Molson: I hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment.


The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) unduly emphasised those aspects of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Health which were taken over from the old Local Government Board. I am one who believes that the Ministry of Health has got at the present time too many different functions to discharge. It is the Ministry which has responsibility for almost every subject which does not appear to fall under any other Ministry. The Home Office is in rather the same position. As things are at the present time, the Ministry of Health is responsible for matters such as rating and the finances of local authorities in addition to health duties. It is logical and reasonable that, under this new comprehensive insurance scheme, there should be a special Department and a special Minister who will be concerned with the insurance and the financial side of the service. It is extremely desirable that the Minister of Health should be free from those various pre-occupations of insurance in order to give increased time and attention to other purely medical responsibilities which rest upon him. Therefore, I hope that the Government will draw a logical and reasonable distinction between the insurance services, which are responsible for providing financially against all the changes and chances of life, and will keep those special medical services, which are closely connected with the medical profession and hospitals, still under the existing Ministry of Health.

Dr. Morgan: I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment. The question of medical benefit is purely a health matter. In spite of what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) said, you cannot separate curative and preventive medicine. It simply cannot be done. The Ministry of Health really has to deal with health and all medical matters which appertain to health, and the importance of prescribing for patients, and things of that kind, and I hope that the Government will not on any account listen to the claim for the Amendment. The administration of the insurance benefit, linking it up with the medical benefit, depends on medical certification. I want to make sure that, under the regulations, rules or procedure with regard to medical certification, there shall be consultation

between the two Departments so that the Minister of National Insurance will not have the power alone to make regulations and decide exactly what medical certification has to be done. The doctors should be free to certify according to their conscience and their own ideas, within the accepted limits of the ordinary medical procedure with regard to prescribing. There should be no departmental regulations specifically that they must certify in a particular way in order to get the benefits available to the patient. I hope that the Minister of Health will still have the power to retain that position.

Sir W. Jowitt: The Government do not propose to accept the Amendment. We do not think that this matter should be left open. It is desirable that this distinction should be drawn in the most emphatic way at the earliest time, that is, the distinction between medical benefit, which means medical treatment and assistance, and sickness benefit, which means periodical payment of sums of money after certification by a doctor.

Sir H. Williams: After certification by a doctor.

4.0 p.m.

Sir W. Jowitt: Let us see what these Sections are other than the powers or duties conferred or imposed under Sections 35 to 43 of the National Health Insurance Act. Let me read the rubrics of the Sections:
Section 35.—(Administration of medical benefit.)
Section 36.—(Power to remove practitioner's name from list.)
Section 37.—(Powers of Minister where medical service inadequate.)
Section 39.—(Supplies of drugs.)
Section 40.—(Powers of Minister where supply of drugs is inadequate.)
Section 41.—(Provisions in respect to persons authorised to supply drugs.)
Section 42.—(Powers of Minister when he removes names of medical practitioners and chemists from list.)
All those are obviously functions which fall exclusively within the control of a health department. The Minister of Health will, shortly, if the proposals are carried through, be in charge of a comprehensive health service, and all those matters are quite obviously part and parcel of the comprehensive health service which is not merely preventive medicine,


which is not merely public health medicine but any of the varieties and aspects of medicine which concern the health of the people, and it would be wrong to transfer those powers from the Minister of Health and take them to this new Department.
Of course, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) will realise that I cannot pronounce as to what the policy of the Minister will be, but I am quite certain that, in the matter he has mentioned, there will be the closest consultation between the new Ministry and the Ministry of Health, and the latter would obviously give advice upon the kind of topics which the hon. Member touched upon in his speech. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It seems to me that the most important point has been missed. It is that doctors ought not to be controlled by the Minister who will be paying benefit. I think that is all-important. The doctor ought to be under a different Minister altogether, for it will be a very bad thing if a man who wants a certificate has to go to a doctor employed by the Ministry of National Insurance. As I understand this Clause, as it stands, the doctor will be completely outside the control of the Minister, and in order that some assurance may be given to those who will claim benefits, they ought to feel that they are not going to a servant of the Fund from which they are claiming benefit. From that point of view I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.

Dr. Russell Thomas: When certificates are issued by a doctor under the Ministry of Health, will they be accepted at their face value by the Ministry with no caveat at all?

Sir W. Jowitt: I cannot possibly answer as to these details, but I should imagine, in the vast majority of cases, that the certificate would be accepted.

Sir H. Williams: I think, in a way, the Minister-Designate inadvertently deceived the Committee by reading out the titles. "Administration of Medical Benefit" sounds like a job done by the Minister of Health but it is really done by a body called the local insurance committee, and the Minister only comes in as an approver later on. As to the "Powers to remove practitioners' names from list," this is

only after such an inquiry as may be prescribed. "Supplies of drugs" is a commercial function which had better be done by the Ministry of Supply if one is in being. So, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to describe these as being things in which the Minister of Health would naturally be expert, was really to deceive himself and the Committee. I do not mind because, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, he only went through the rubrics; next time he ought to read the rest of the Prayer Book.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In line 24, leave out "1940," and insert "1944."—[The Attorney-General.]

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: rose—

The Chairman: I was not proposing to select the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The matter has already been very fully discussed.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It does raise a different point.

The Chairman: Perhaps the right and gallant Gentleman will make his point on the Question, "That the Clause stand part."

Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, leave out "enactment."
This is quite clear. I realise that these words are governed by the words which appear above, and they are, presumably, limited to such incidental, consequential, and supplemental provisions as appear to His Majesty to be necessary and expedient. Nevertheless, I must say that I dislike the proposal by an Order to amend an enactment. I quite appreciate the right, by an Order, to amend any other Order but when we come to enactments, delegated legislation is trespassing on the privileges of Parliament, and I think we ought to watch it. I know that this point has frequently been argued out before, and the defence is that no Minister has ever behaved badly, but that is not a reason for saying that if a Minister commits murder, he shall not be punished. It is just as well that the restriction should continue to exist.

Mr. Molson: I think that my hon. Friend has raised a point of some importance, and I feel that although there is a good deal to be said for a provision


of this kind, when new and somewhat wide legislation is introduced, in order to enable all those small consequential alterations to be made in the large volume of statute laws which will be affected by a Bill of this kind, it is only right that the House of Commons should keep it very narrowly under review. I would like to draw the attention of the Government to the special report of the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, which stresses the importance of the House of Commons retaining control over any delegated legislation of this kind. The Committee pointed out that where delegated legislation does enable existing legislation to be amended, it is most important that there should be a special provision for Rules or Orders of that kind to be laid before the House, and for there to be an opportunity for a Prayer. There is a subsequent Amendment which deals with that point, but I hope the Government will realise that it is this special provision, namely Statutes passed by this House to be modified by delegated legislation, which makes it especially important at a later time for us to move that any rules or Orders of this kind shall be laid before the House with ample opportunity for the House to pray against them. This point was also made by the Dunmore Committee.

Mr. Petherick: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that whenever the so-called "Henry VIII Clause" rears its ugly head—

Hon. Members: No, no.

Sir H. Williams: . That was a divorce Bill.

Mr. Petherick: Was it not the case that at the time of King Henry VIII an Act of Parliament was passed which gave His Majesty, by Order in Council, the right to repeal any Act of Parliament? It seems to me that this is a similar instrument that gives power to His Majesty, by Order in Council, to repeal, modify or adapt any enactment. If I am right in saying that this is the King Henry VIII Clause, or something like it, I do not think it is sight that the House should ever pass such a Clause without challenging it, and I therefore ask the Government to show cause why it is necessary to insert it in the Bill. In this case I

can well understand that it may be that there are a number of Acts of Parliament already in existence which ought to be repealed in whole or in part, but I maintain that when the Government bring forward a new Bill it is their duty to see that under the Act or provisions of the enactment or Rule or Order, and particularly when an Act of Parliament is to be changed, that enactment should be put in the form of a Schedule to the Bill which it is proposed to pass.
I think this is rather an excuse, if I may say so, for some wide and sloppy draftsmanship. I imagine that it has been designed to sweep up the crumbs, as it were. Suppose the Government find, during the course of the machinery which it is proposed to introduce, that there is part of an existing Act which has to be repealed, then they are able to do it by putting in this particular Clause. I do not think that is a satisfactory way of doing it. The Government ought to take all the trouble they can, when envisaging the machinery they propose to use, to see that if it entails any changes in existing enactments a Schedule should be put into the Bill saying precisely what they are. The Minister of Aircraft Production, in his unregenerate days, some years ago, proposed, rather unwisely, to introduce a comprehensive Measure which gave His Majesty the right to do anything by Order in Council—

The Chairman: I do not think the hon. Member can go into that question now.

Mr. Petherick: I had finished my argument on that point, Major Milner, and I will not pursue it any longer, but as a general rule I should put this matter of the Henry VIII Clause, or anything analogous to it, very high on the list of those instruments which ought to be challenged whenevr they are put forward in the form of a Bill in this House. I therefore hope that the Attorney-General will show good cause as to why he feels that this insertion is particularly necessary in this Bill.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: I want not only to support but to press for the acceptance of this Amendment. To leave these words in the Clause as it stands is really to support sloppy legislation. If there is any Act of Parliament which needs amendment it should go in the Schedule


to the Bill. I would like to ask the Attorney-General: Are these words really necessary? I suggest that it is proper, when this type of legislation is before the House, that the House should retain its power of control over such legislation.

The Attorney-General: First, let me say that I do not in the least complain about a Clause of this kind being challenged—indeed, I welcome it—because it gives those who are responsible for the Bill an opportunity of trying to convince the Committee that these are things not put in lightly, but because there is a strong case for them. Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) that this is not the Henry VIII Clause, that is to say if one adopts the ordinary terminology. The Henry VIII Clause was a Clause which appeared in certain Acts—I think mostly towards the end of the last war—and which gave the Minister power to amend that Act by Order in Council, and then said that these Amendments, when made, should have the same effect as if they had been originally in the Act and had passed through all stages in both Houses. Rightly, I think, objection was taken to that. Of course, people can call a rose by any other name and I shall not quarrel with my hon. Friend if he chooses to describe this Clause as one analogous to the Henry VIII Clause. It is, however, put in not as a matter of sloppy drafting but to prevent there being a long and cumbrous Schedule, and particularly with regard to this Bill, because you cannot say at this precise moment what amendments in enactments may be necessary. This Bill empowers the Government, by Order in Council, to transfer certain of the functions of existing Ministers to the new Minister. I think it is generally desirable that there should be a little elasticity there. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), in his last Amendment, asked for more elasticity. Everybody agrees that it is desirable that there should be a certain amount of elasticity at the moment as to where precisely that line is drawn, but the decision as to where the line is drawn will affect the question as to what amendments of enactments is necessary to make.
Let me give a few examples. For instance, in the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, there are hundreds of refer-

ences to "the Minister." When these Orders in Council under Clause 6 have been drawn up, in, say, go of these cases for "the Minister," there will have to be read "the Minister of National Insurance," and in 10 cases "the Minister of Health." Whether it will be 90 or 91 depends on the decisions which are taken under Clause 6 and, therefore, there is no question of sloppiness here. It will be necessary to amend enactments, and the vast bulk of the Amendments will be this alteration of terminology—for instance, "In Section so-and-so for 'Minister' real 'Minister of National Insurance'." That is a good example of the necessity for having these provisions. It would be impossible to produce a Schedule now in a final form because it will depend upon the nature of the decisions which are taken under Clause 6. The same point also arises in the Unemployment Act, 1934, where there are references to "the Minister of Health" which will now have to be "The Minister of National Insurance." I hope the Committee will agree that it is necessary to have a provision of this kind. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon said, there has never been a case where it has been suggested that it has been abused and that the Order has gone wider than these words legitimately justify. I appreciate that the fact that it is necessary to retain power to amend enactments reinforces the argument which will be advanced later on other and wider grounds for saying that these Orders should be subject to a negative Resolution, but I would ask the Committee to reject the Amendment. I hope I have shown that it is necessary to have the power and that it is not due to sloppiness.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: If leaving the word "enactment" in the Clause is only intended to enable the Minister to deal with drafting Amendments, could he not possibly leave out the words in line 23 and 24:
but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision"?

The Attorney-General: I think it is perfectly right as it stands.

Captain Duncan: I dislike this sort of language and I support the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) called it a Henry VIII Clause. The Attorney-General said it was not because the Henry VIII Clause


enables a Minister to amend an Act by Order in Council. To start with, the Minister cannot issue Orders in Council and, secondly, what is the difference in language between amending an Act and modifying an enactment? It seems to me it is exactly the same principle with slightly different language and it is in effect the same system as the Henry VIII Clause, to which I strongly object. I agree that at this stage it is not possible to put all the Amendments required in a Schedule to the Bill but there will be a large number of Bills in the next Session dealing with various aspects of the matter. Would it not be better to put the several Acts in the Schedule rather than have this objectionable system? It is not only Acts passed by this House but Acts passed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland 'which can be repealed, modified or adapted. I hope the Attorney-General will have another look at it and see if it cannot be done in the way we are most anxious that it should be done.

Mr. Petherick: I think my right hon. and learned Friend was technically right but substantially wrong. He is right in this respect, that a few years ago, when the Henry VIII Clause started to be used fairly freely, it was giving power to the Government of the day in one Act of Parliament to alter that same Act of Parliament, but I do not think he was quite correct, taking the long view, because it was just a loose expression which was invented at that time. It referred to a very important principle of a Statute of the time of Henry VIII which gave His Majesty the power to alter not only any given Act but all Acts of Parliament simply by Order in Council. We feel that the principle is really the same and that it should be watched rather closely.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, leave out "and without more."
I do not understand what these words mean and I should like the Attorney-General to tell us.

The Attorney-General: They have been inserted in previous Acts for this reason. The Sub-section deals with the transfer of property and it was thought that, although the Order in Council provided for the transfer, someone might suggest

that it was necessary to have a formal legal transfer in the form of a conveyance. The words have been inserted before to prevent any argument and to make it clear that the Order in Council, without any further instruction, operates as a transfer of the property. I think, on the whole, it is a good formula and it would be a pity to change it.

Mr. Petherick: When I read it I did not understand it. I imagined that it meant without more Orders. Apparently it means without more machinery. Would it not be better to insert the word "machinery"?

The Attorney-General: I do not think "machinery" is an apt word.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, to leave out "before".
I have tried to understand this sentence and failed, and I want some cheap legal advice on the real significance of the word.

4.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General: My advice will certainly be cheap, and I hope it will be acceptable. May I read the words of the paragraph—
Provide for treating anything done before the date when the Order takes effect by, to, before or under the authority of an existing authority.
My hon. Friend is concerned with the meaning of the word "before." The object is, and it is a necessary object, to see that when we make a change of this kind we do not force people to start all over again. They may have given notice to the Minister of Health as part of a procedure which is incomplete at the time when the new Ministry is set up. The word "before" is inserted to cover those cases where there is to be or can be something, say, in the nature of a hearing before an authority. The ordinary preposition used in that case is "before."

Sir H. Williams: It has nothing to do with time, but with place?

The Attorney-General: Yes; it is the ordinary expression, as in the phrase "before a judge."

Sir H. Williams: As the word "before" really means "in front of," I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Harold Webbe: I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, leave out Sub-section (7), and insert:
(7) Every Order in Council made under this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, but, notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (4) of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, such an Order shall be deemed not to be a statutory rule to which that Section applies.
(8) If either House of Parliament within the next twenty-eight days on which the House has sat after such an Order in Council as aforesaid is laid before it, resolves that the Order be annulled, the Order shall thereupon cease to have effect, except as respecting things previously done or omitted to be done, without prejudice, however, to the making of a new order.
I am in the happy position of knowing what this Amendment means. Its effect is to bring within the control of Parliament the Orders in Council which are to be issued by the new Minister. Although I attach great importance to the Amendment, I need not take up much time in arguing it. In the first place, I am encouraged by the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on a previous Amendment to think that this Amendment may receive sympathetic consideration. In the second place, the matter was fully discussed on Second Reading, and I am obliged to move the Amendment, not merely on the narrow ground which was indicated by my right hon. and learned Friend a few moments ago, but on the much broader grounds which were advanced by my hon. Friends the Members for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) on Second Reading, because the reply which was then given by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was unsatisfactory. The Solicitor-General, it is true, accepted the fundamental argument which was put forward in support of the principle which this Amendment embodies, when he said:
The control of the House over all subsidiary legislation, and, indeed, over Ministerial action, is a vital part of our constitution and one which we all value.
But he then went on to argue that here this was merely a matter of transfer of powers and of timing, and that the Orders in Council were merely the instruments by which the new Minister would give effect to the will of the House as already expressed in this Bill. He said:
This House, by passing the Second Reading, is approving of the general principle of the transfer of powers. It is, then, a

matter for the Government during what period and at what time these powers will be transferred.
Further on he said:
This is merely the putting into force of specific powers laid out in the Bill, the transfer of which has been approved by the House.
He went on to argue that,
as regards the timing of the transfers, it is merely an administrative matter … which does not need the special requirement of an affirmative or negative Resolution.
Furthermore, he referred specially to the Orders in Council which are contemplated under subsection (4, a), and he pointed out that these Orders would be
limited to provisions which are either incidental or consequential or are necessary to an Order in Council making the transfer. It is only for that limited purpose
that they would be required. So that, he concluded,
I do not think that when we are limited to incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions, there can be a very formidable inroad into the privileges of the House."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th Nov., 1944; Vol. 404, c. 1704–6.]
I am afraid that my hon. and learned Friend did not fully appreciate the case which had been made and was not fairly interpreting the Bill as it stands. His case was based on the argument that the powers to be transferred are specifically laid down in the Bill and that the House, by passing the Bill, is itself reaching the decision in regard to these transfers and leaving the new Minister nothing to do but merely to implement that decision. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon pointed out in interrupting the Solicitor-General, the powers to be transferred are by no means specifically laid down in Clause 6. That Clause does not state exactly which powers are to be transferred, but merely makes a list of groups of powers, any of which can be transferred. I think that my hon. Friend was quite right in anticipating that the partial transfer of powers might well lead to difficulty and consequential problems which should have the attention of this House. I submit that it goes even further than that, because in Sub-section (3, b) there is specific provision for Orders in Council to be made if His Majesty consider it necessary or expedient to do so, providing for:
the transfer to the Minister of any power or duty conferred or imposed on an existing authority by or under any enactment other than those mentioned in Sub-section (1).


So that clearly the position is completely open, and this Bill does not provide for the specific transfers which are to be covered by the Orders in Council. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment and will apply to these Orders the salutary check which is applied normally to Orders by submitting them to Prayer by either House of Parliament. The argument may be advanced, as it was by the Solicitor-General, that in these matters we must trust the Minister. That is an argument which has been used rather too frequently in the last few years. It is an argument which it is invidious to challenge, but it goes dangerously far along the road which leads to that abomination, the totalitarian State. I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend to adopt another argument this time and rely, not on the good will of the Minister, but on the good sense of this House and of Parliament not to abuse its position.

Sir P. Harris: I wish to support the view which my hon. Friend has put so well. He has covered the ground so clearly that it is not necessary for me to add another argument, except to say that the Government are very sensitive to feeling in all quarters. Earlier in the day they gave way on another issue because of what they thought was the general feeling of the Committee. Perhaps I may, from this corner of the Committee, add to the feeling in support of this Amendment, which raises a fundamental issue. From whatever angle of approach we look at the problem, we want to know what powers are transferred, and to have the right to criticise as to whether they are adequate or are too great. They will probably be too small for me. We want to have control by the House of Commons. Therefore I support the Amendment.

Mr. Etherton: I do not want to occupy time by repeating arguments which have been used, but I want to indicate to the Government that there is very strong feeling on these benches that they should accept the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: The Government are always vulnerable in Committee, from one of two angles. If they give way to what appears to be a general feeling in all quarters of the House they can always be told that they have no mind of their

own. If, on the other hand, they strenuously resist hon. Members' suggestions, they may be asked: "What is the use of a Committee stage?" We try to hit the happy medium. The Bill was introduced without a provision for a negative Resolution against Orders in Council, on the basis that it was, in effect, merely a machinery transfer Bill, in which case I would be inclined to support the provisions of the Bill as they were put forward. It was looking at it in that light which led the Government to put it forward as the Committee find it at the present time; but we feel there is great force in the argument which has been put to-day, and which was put also by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), in, I think, an interruption of the Solicitor-General rather than in the speech he made earlier, and of which I am sure the whole Committee will be conscious, as a result of the discussion which we have had.
It is said, and said rightly: "This is not a mere transfer of machinery Bill. You cannot tell by looking at the Bill precisely what is going to be transferred, because that is going to be the subject of separate decisions." I was justified in resisting an Amendment just now on the ground that we could not tell exactly what Amendments of any enactments we should have to make until the policy decision had been taken as to where the line should be drawn. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that Orders in Council under the Bill come out of the category where the House would be unreasonable to ask for the negative Resolution procedure and come into the category where the negative Resolution procedure is appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Duff Cooper)—

Sir H. Williams: I believe he is in Paris.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry. I meant the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe) said: "Let us proceed on the basis that the House will show common sense in the use of its powers." I am quite happy to proceed on that basis. As a matter of fact, although slight heat is sometimes developed on this subject, I do not think that hon. Members who do not sit on these benches have great complaint of Ministers or that Ministers have any complaint of the exercise of powers by the


House of Commons. We have no reason to think that anything other than good sense will be brought to bear upon these Orders, as upon others. Therefore, we think, for the reasons which I have given, that the case is made out for putting these Orders into what I call the negative Resolution pigeon hole. There are three pigeon holes: The affirmative Resolution pigeon hole, the negative Resolution pigeon hole and the no Resolution pigeon hole. We think that the Orders in this case should go into the middle pigeon hole and therefore we accept the Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: It may seem a little ungracious of me to detain the Committee upon an Amendment after we have had a concession, but I hope I may be forgiven —I shall be quite short—as I think there are one or two other points which might usefully be put to the Committee. One is that the Government might look at these matters more often from the point of view of what they really need in order to do the business in hand, and not always come to us with Bills which ask us for a much bigger cheque than they intend to spend, and then, if sufficient of us make a fuss, proceed to write across it, "Not more than £100." That is rather an ungracious way of doing it.
Secondly, I would like to ask the learned Attorney a question. He said there were three pigeon holes into which these things could be put, but there is a fourth, which he omitted. There is the pigeon hole which demands that draft Orders shall be laid before the House, which is stronger, from the point of view of the House of Commons, than either the positive or the negative Resolution procedures, because it makes amendment practicable. And, thirdly, I was a little disquieted by his suggestion that if this had been a mere machinery transfer Bill the Government would have dug their toes in. I ask the Government not to accept that as a principle. Even if this were a mere machinery transfer Bill, to draw the line between the mereness of the transfer and the possible legislative effect of some machinery transfers is very difficult for us. It makes it all the more difficult when Bills which everyone wants to see passed are considered at the very end of the Session and the Government ask us to take the Committee stage and all other

stages on the next Parliamentary day to that on which we discuss the Second Reading. This makes it very difficult.
I am not sure whether my recollection is right, and there has been no time to correct it, but in one of the earlier Bills of this sort, I think it was the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, provisions equivalent to these were submitted in the original Bill and not after protest, certainly in the Act, they were submitted to the fourth pigeon hole process, the one which the Attorney-General left out. That is, they had to be placed before the House of Commons in draft, so that the House could not only accept or reject them but could, possibly, amend them. That is the tightest of all these controls. I am very grateful to the Attorney-General for the concession, but I hope that the Government will not accept the assumption, at which he seemed to hint, that where a Measure can be defined, or assumed, to be a mere machinery transfer Bill, the House ought not to expect any kind of control at all. I am sure that we shall be laying up trouble for ourselves if that assumption goes unquestioned.

Mr. Petherick: I rise merely to make a suggestion. The Government have seen the force of the argument which was presented, and they have given in a most gracious way what the Committee requested. It might be possible to save a good deal of Parliamentary time in the future if the Prime Minister, in the middle of all those multifarious duties which he has, could write a letter to the heads of Departments or to the Ministers concerned, pointing out that in matters of this kind, where powers have been asked for, they should not indulge in great amendment by Order in Council. He might point out to the Ministers that it would be very much better if, when Bills are being drafted, the power of the House of Commons to pray against such Orders should be granted. I believe that would save a lot of Parliamentary time, and would be very much better from the Government's point of view.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I would like to ask the Government representative what they mean to do under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3) to
provide for the alteration of the constitution and functions of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee.
And, secondly, what they mean to do in the way of modifying
Section five of the Scottish Board of Health Act, 1919, to give advice in connection with matters relating to national health insurance;

Sir W. Jowitt: This is a very complicated business. The Joint Committee at the present time consists of the Minister of Health, who is the Chairman, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Labour for Northern Ireland and a person, appointed by the Minister of Health, having special knowledge of national health insurance in Wales. The Committee derives from an early date when there were four national areas each with its separate fund, and there are still to this day four separate insurance funds for those countries. The main functions of the Committee in the past have been to deal with financial matters which arise in circumstances of this sort: where an insured person, having lived for some time in one area, moves to another, various financial adjustments have to be made; and various financial adjustments have sometimes to be made with regard to an approved society which carries on its business in both areas. They also make regulations concerning the valuations of approved societies. I have been at pains to check up this matter. The Committee have never yet exercised any functions except in regard to what I might call the payment of sickness benefit. They have never arrogated to themselves the right to exercise any function or to make any regulation with regard to medical matters. Whether they actually have the power or not is not quite plain, because Section 160 of the Act is drafted in such a way that it looks as if they may increase their powers by making their own regulations. They have never yet done so.
When the Ministry of National Insurance Bill becomes law and the Orders in Council transfer certain functions of the Ministry of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Minister of National Insurance, then the Joint Committee must be reconstituted, because it

would be impossible for the Joint Committee dealing with the financial aspect not to have the Minister of National Insurance as one of its Members. Exactly what the constitution of the Committee will be I cannot pledge myself at the moment, but it is obvious that the new Minister must be a Member of a Committee which deals with matters which are peculiarly within his province. I am afraid I am not acquainted with the provisions of the Section about which the right hon. and gallant Member questioned me, but I shall, in dealing with that matter, collaborate with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the same principle will apply, namely, in so far as that Section deals with medical benefit that will remain entirely his concern. In so far as it deals with sickness benefit that will become the concern of the new Minister.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman see any functions for the National Joint Committee after the single Ministry has been set up, and all the funds pooled?

Sir W. Jowitt: I think very likely and probably there will not be, but in the immediate interregnum we should still be carrying on for an interval of time under the approved society system. So long as that lasts the Joint Committee will have to continue. The only possibility of it continuing thereafter is in regard to Northern Ireland. I am not sure that we shall require to have it at all, and in the big Bill we shall have to deal with it.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill", put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Short title.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 44, leave out "Social," and insert "National."—[Sir H. Williams.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of Order, Major Milner. I think you will have noticed that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been much discussed here to-day during the Committee stage of this Bill. I find on looking at it that the Bill is not backed by the Secretary of State for Scotland—

The Chairman: I am afraid that is not a point of Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will raise it at some later stage of the Bill. It is not a matter for me.

TITLE (Ministry of Social Insurance Bill).

Amendment made: In line 1, leave out "Social," and insert "National."—[Mr. Ralph Etherton.]

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments [Title amended], (changed to Ministry of National Insurance Bill).

As amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

4.58 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: I would say just one or two words of good will to the Minister-Designate. As he knows, I am rather critical, but not of this Bill nor of the powers which are to be given to him. What I am worried about is the cost of the additional powers. I think Members ought to realise that even if no further legislation takes place the Minister has a very big job. People are thinking that this Bill does not matter, but we are transferring to this Minister services which at the moment are costing £500,000,000 a year. In peace time this Ministry will be far and away the largest spender in the Government, bigger than the Defence Services. This Ministry will be one of the biggest spending Departments, and one which in times of difficulty will be the subject of the biggest number of Debates. When my mind goes back to the Debates about unemployment insurance and assistance I can foresee the Minister having a very busy time. We all wish him well. We can accept it that he is to be the Minister, because approval has been given to the announcement in advance that he is the Minister-Designate. Next week he will have a Portfolio in which he can keep his bits and pieces—betting slips if he goes in for such things, or unpaid bills and that sort of thing. I have never discovered what a Minister keeps in his Portfolio. A portfolio means the thing in which to carry around bits of paper. People think of a portfolio as being something like a seal, but I presume that really a portfolio is one of those beautiful black bags, decorated with the Royal arms. We shall look

with curiosity at the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he comes into the House in the new Session, to see with what kind of portfolio he has been decorated.
Aside from that frivolity, I wish him well. He has an enormous task. He has to master the contents of the National Health Insurance Acts—fortunately for him, they were recently consolidated—the Old Age Pensions Acts, the Contributory Pensions Acts, all the provisions with regard to widows—I know how complicated some of them are—all the provisions in regard to social insurance—which at the moment do not loom very large, for when we live on borrowed money there is not much difficulty, but after the war it will be a very different matter. Then there is the problem of the Assistance Board. I presume that it is all coming to him. I do not know what is to happen to the Chairman and the existing organisation of the Assistance Board. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has the biggest problem which any Minister ever had in peace time. For that reason, I wish him good luck.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: This is one of the most important Measures that we have had before us for some time. The Secretary of State for Scotland has been mentioned time and time again, because he has to put this Measure into operation in Scotland; yet I looked at the back of the Bill, and found that his name was not there. The Bill is
presented by Mr. Attlee, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Ernest Brown, and Mr. Peake.
Why is the Secretary of State for Scotland not here? Did he agree to this Bill? This is a serious business. Here is something that has to be operated by the Secretary of State for Scotland—

Sir H. Williams: No, he has no powers under the Bill; he loses them.

Mr. Kirkwood: We were given to understand something quite different in the explanation given by the Minister who is to be responsible for operating the Act here in London.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I have given the hon. Member a little latitude, but on Third Reading he is entitled to deal only with what is in the Bill. As I understand, he wants to deal with some-


thing that is not in the Bill; I hope, therefore, that he will not proceed with the matter.

Mr. Kirkwood: The name of the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to have been on the Bill, and we Scotsmen have a right to an explanation. Either he has backed this Bill or he has not.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: I do not propose to occupy the time of the House for more than a moment, but I would like to say a word of welcome for this Bill, and to congratulate the Minister-Designate on the very conciliatory attitude which he has adopted in accepting Amendments during the Committee stage. I think it is a matter for comment that, although I see two hon. Members who are Members of the Liberal National Party in their places, there is no Member of the Liberal Party on the other side of the House in his place. Although they have told us from time to time that they alone have been responsible for this Bill, they evidently are not interested at this stage.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. McKinlay: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why the right hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is interested in this Bill, and what are the functions of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air in the scheme? I think that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs {Mr. Kirkwood) is one of substance. It appears that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not backed the Bill, and that he has accepted it under pressure. Considering that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leith and the Secretary of State for Air are backing the Bill, some explanation ought to be forthcoming. Either the names on the back of the Bill mean something or they mean nothing.

5.7 p.m.

Sir W. Jowitt: I think I can guess why those particular names were selected, and I rather suspect that the hon. Member can guess. I should think that they were selected because they were the leaders of the various organised political parties in the Government. My hon. Friend can be assured that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is well able to look after himself, and that he is not

a person who submits to any considerable political pressure—certainly not from me. If my hon. Friend had seen him sitting by my side this morning, smiling happily, he would realise that an undue amount of duress had not been imposed upon my right hon. Friend. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) for wishing me well. I am very conscious that the task I have is an immensely important task. On its being done well depends the happiness of tens of thousands of people. For that very reason, I have been anxious not to try to paint it as an even greater task than it is. Taken by itself, without a great many other things, such as full employment and the rest of it, it cannot, of course, bring security or happiness to everyone; but if I am to be entrusted with this task. I shall do the best that in me lies in introducing a Measure which, I ask the House to realise, will be of immense complexity. It will be an enormous task to get it ready, and I wish it were true that, as I have heard, the Bill was nearly ready, because it is by no means true. I must ask for kindly consideration from the House, and I believe that I shall get it. I shall do my utmost to see that no undue time is lost in getting on with the job.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I want to say a word or two in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Etherton). I am very sorry that he introduced a needless note of party feeling into what would otherwise have been general good wishes to the Minister from all sides of the House. He called attention to the fact that just at the moment of his speech my hon. Friends on the Liberal bench were not present. But he knows that a number of them have been taking the deepest interest in the progress of this Measure and all that has gone before it. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) has pleaded for years for such a Measure of co-ordination as we now have in this Bill, while the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed {Sir W. Beveridge) has done more than any other man in this country to make possible the work to which the Minister-Designate is going to devote himself. I am glad that the name of this most important Ministry has been altered to correspond with the reality. It is to be a Ministry of National Insurance.


But I hope it will lead the way to a Ministry of Social Security, and I think that, however difficult the path may be, every hon. Member of this House will be glad when that day comes, and we shall all wish the Minister-Designate every success in the great task he has undertaken.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Ripley, in the county of Derby, a copy of which Order was presented on 9th November, be approved."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Orders of the Day — SHOPS, CENTRAL LONDON (CLOSING HOURS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.)

5.12 p.m.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Thousands of workers who live in the central London area are extremely upset that they may have no opportunity of doing their Christmas shopping. By a Home Office Regulation that comes into force next Monday and continues until 13th January, large numbers of the shops in the central London area will be compelled to close at 4 o'clock: Before I proceed, I would like to apologise for raising this matter at such short notice. It so happened that the Adjournment period to-day had been taken by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who, for reasons best known to himself, gave it up, and, therefore, the opportunity came my way. The only reason why I have taken it, and have not been able to give longer notice to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, is because this Regulation comes into force next Monday, and, therefore, it is very unlikely that before then there will be another opportunity to raise what to thousands of people is a very urgent matter. While on the subject of the Parliamentary Secretary for War Transport, I should like to thank him for his courtesy in coming down to the House

to-day at such short notice. In the same way, I appreciate, like many other hon. Members do, the personal care and consideration he invariably gives from his Department to all inquiries from M.P's.
This Regulation for the closing of shops in the central London area at 4 o'clock is creating more bad feeling than, perhaps, anything has done for a long time past. How, in Heaven's name, is a worker, who works and lives in central London and whose work takes him or her up to, say, five o'clock or 5.30 p.m., going to get the shopping done when the shops which are available to them close at four o'clock? I believe that all Departments, including the Home Office, are against this imposition—all except the Ministry of War Transport, and I understand that the main reason for the objection of that Ministry is this. They say that, unless the hours are staggered, there will be undue congestion. The idea is, I believe, that shoppers and shop assistants shall be able to get back to their homes between 3.30 and 4.30 p.m., and factory workers and others afterwards. The first observation I should like to make is that there are comparatively few factory workers in the central London area, and the second point to which I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend is this. Why, if traffic has worked more or less satisfactorily up to now, is it necessary to change conditions during the next six weeks, and especially over the Christmas period? I suppose that an answer to that would be that, by that means, one could get more people back home by black-out. Why is that necessary? Surely the necessity for this no longer exists to the same extent? I can well understand that, earlier on, it was very desirable for people to get back to their homes, and to what security they could find there, before the black-out, but now the same necessity does not arise.
My experience has been—and I may say that I have already had a considerable amount of representations on this subject, and only to-day there were three deputations in the Lobbies from various bodies—that what is going to aggravate people more than anything else, more than being congested, as undoubtedly they may be, is that thousands are not going to have a fair opportunity of doing the shopping for the various necessities of their existence as well as for Christmas. Incidentally, a large proportion of workers in the central


London area do not travel, or do not travel very far, because they live in the central London area, and I think that some hon. Members would be amazed if they realised the number of poor people who live in congested areas in my constituency, which is supposed to be one of the richest boroughs in London. Remember, there are thousands and thousands of workers who live in the central London area.
Now from the shops' point of view this regulation is grossly unfair, especially to the small trader. Take, for example, part of my constituency—the Edgware Road. This Regulation is arbitrary to the extent that there will be a collection of shops on one side of the road which, from next Monday, will have to close at four o'clock, while their competitors on the other side of the road can stay open until the usual time. I have had several small traders come to me and say that this, in effect, means ruin to them. They state that their larger competitors, who may stay open longer, will have the advantage. These people often rely on Christmas trade to make all the difference between profit and loss. It is a little significant that, at a conference that was called by the Home Office and took place on 18th October last, no representatives of the chambers of commerce concerned were invited. Surely, they should have been invited?
The London public have had a grim enough time without unnecessarily ruining their forthcoming Christmas, to say nothing of ruining some small traders. This one-sided Regulation is by no means essential. Therefore, I would make this last-minute appeal to the Minister to use his influence to give these poor, hard-pressed people a break.

5.20 p.m.

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: I should like to add a few words in support of what has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid). I, too, to-day, as one of the Members for the Borough of St. Pancras, have been approached by the St. Pancras Chamber of Commerce in this matter and it is extremely unfortunate that this brake should be put upon trade in the coming months, and particularly during the Christmas trade. I understand that my hon. Friend the

Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will raise the arguments of his Department as to why this should be done. I would like to say to him and to the House, that large numbers of these people affected, probably the majority of the people affected, do not use his transport at all. Many of them are London and North Eastern and Great Western railway workers who have to walk home and will not be able to do Christmas or any shopping during December. I hope that this last-minute appeal, as my hon. and gallant Friend called it, will be accepted and that the Regulation will not be given force.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Before the Minister replies, I would like to put a suggestion to him which he can also consider and which is in keeping with the various aspects of the trade as divorced from the arguments used by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras, North (Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris) and the hon. and gallant Member who raised the issue. When we are considering whether there should be a relaxation of an Order such as this, we need some concrete evidence as to who is complaining and from whence is the complaint coming. That is very important. I have the privilege week by week of seeing reports on almost every kind of resolution about everything that matters and lots of things that do not matter from every trade union in the 73 areas around London and the immediate vicinity associated with this particular agitation in Marylebone and St. Pancras. Frankly, I have not seen a mention of this issue from any of the trade unions or any of the trades councils during the past week or two. Trades unionists, war workers and shop-steward movements are not backward in coming forward if there is any agitation which they think worth while backing. If our people were suffering from this particular issue, I would be the first to take up the case for the workers of either Marylebone or St. Pancras, not from the point of view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who raised these issues, but from the trade union point of view.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: The hon. Member said that he is not aware from whence representations have come. I do not know whether he was in the House at the beginning of my remarks, but if


I did not make the matter clear perhaps I may now do so. I have had several representations from small traders in my constituency, and even more representations from war workers who are not able to cope with the problem of their shopping during the festive season.

Mr. Walkden: I do not wish to be unfair in examining the question, but I want the Minister to examine every angle and every argument. I do not dispute for a moment that small shopkeepers may have put forward pleas of the kind to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred, and, what is more, I believe that somehow these unfortunate small shopkeepers in Marylebone and St. Pancras are linked up with the West End of London. This particular Order was made to apply to the West End of London because people will, for some reason best known to themselves, perambulate round the West End of London later than they ought to do.

Mr. Reakes: This is a free country.

Mr. Walkden: While this is a free country, there are a lot of regulations which we have to accept. My lad is serving in the Forces like other lads and he is doing it because he recognises that there is a need in the name of the country, but he is not free. What is more, we want these people who have sufficient time on their hands to go round the West End of London to recognise that there are war workers who want to get home. We do not want these people crowding London's buses, tubes and the Southern and Great Western Railways when railway workers want to get home.

Mr. Reakes: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence that they are doing this?

Mr. Walkden: I travel home by tram, train, bus or tube. I never use petrol in London and it is on very rare occasions that I get a taxi, as I believe is the experience of other hon. Members, and on every night in the week there are lots of people who should not be in the buses or on the tubes when war workers are wanting to get home.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: The conditions are exactly the same now.

Mr. Walkden: Conditions are the same, but there are reasons in the next few

weeks why we do not want to encourage this sort of thing. I began by asking where the protest had come from, as no one has brought evidence that it has come from the trades union or the trades council or from the factories, other than an odd deputation, and has given no material evidence that, in particular, St. Pancras workers themselves have protested against it.
I feel that if the small shopkeeper has a case for selling in the back street of Marylebone or St. Pancras there should be, within reason, facilities for him to dispose of or sell his goods. If there are goods in the large stores in the West End of London which the workers want, they are snapped up before very long, as people come from all the suburbs of London. It is the small shopkeeper at the corner of the street in Marylebone and St. Pancras that matters and I would not like to see, by decision of the Home Secretary or the Minister of Transport, an injustice done to the small shopkeeper. He is there rendering a service to the consumer because it is convenient for the consumer to go to the small shopkeeper.

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: It would be an injustice to him.

Mr. Walkden: It would be an injustice to him. I have received letters the other way round from thousands of shop assistants in the London area saying that they hoped they would not have to go back this winter to what happened last winter because the position is fair all round. We want to be equitable with regard to the small shopkeeper, the shop assistant, and the consumers, including war workers and everybody else.

Captain Gammans: Will the hon. Member say why he thinks the argument he is putting forward for closing shops at four o'clock does not equally apply all the year round?

Mr. Walkden: I am not asking that we should close the shops at four or half-past four. I am simply concerned with an Order and the reason for it. To talk about closing shops at 4.30 in the afternoon as a general practice is absurd. We could never really operate such a system, but something unusual has happened and we must apply a remedy, which is the one suggested in the Order to which the hon. and gallant Member objected. I beg of


the Minister to weigh up the various considerations and see whether there is not something to be done to divorce these small shopkeepers in the back streets of Marylebone and St. Pancras from the general terms of the Order which is applicable to the shops in what we understand to be the West End of London—Harrods, Selfridges, Gamages, Barkers, and all the different firms—if they closed at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, in the main it would not affect them very much. Those people would still have time on their hands, and the stock of the choice goods would be sold before 11 o'clock on most days, so that would not bother war workers very much.
I do not want to make a mistake on this in suggesting lengthening the hours for shop workers, or giving the grocer—because the grocer is not involved in this argument—or the man who sells boots and shoes or wearing apparel, the opportunity to keep open until 8 o'clock. We do not believe in those silly ideas any more, but half an hour, or an hour probably, added to this order—maybe until 6 o'clock—would be in keeping with the rest of London. I believe that Tooting should not have an advantage over St. Pancras or St. Marylebone, so I ask the Minister to weigh up this as best he can, with all the arguments put forward, but bearing in mind that we, as trade unionists, are keeping a close eye on this issue. We are not going to agree simply because two or three people with corner shops come along and ask to keep open until 6, 7 or 8 o'clock at night as they did in those bad old days—

Mr. Reakes: That is not suggested.

Mr. Walkden: It is not suggested, it is true, but the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Reakes) would do well to keep out of it because, as far as he is concerned, I know that the hours in his area are not unlimited but the shop workers there would not admire him if he suggested that they should keep open in Wallasey one hour longer, because they can keep open until 6 o'clock in Wallasey already.

Mr. Reakes: May I interrupt? It is the last thing I would suggest, but at a time—

Mr. Walkden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should give way.

Mr. Reakes: It is the last thing I should suggest, but if the Home Office, or any other Government Department, suggested closing at 4 o'clock on Merseyside during the Christmas shopping period, there would be strong protests made, and I would be the first to make them, because it is a ridiculous hour to close.

Mr. Walkden: Nobody is arguing in that direction at all. What we are trying to achieve is equity for all, and I beg the Minister to use what has been said to be quite sure that he does not do harm to the respective interests which have not been referred to here this afternoon, and to take into account the interests which I have suggested should have their point of view considered.

Mr. Reakes: That is all right.

5.34 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I did not know this subject was to be raised, and I have not been able to fortify myself by reference to the document which I am about to mention. To some extent, if it had not been for a Report by the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which was the result of evidence taken by the sub-committee of which I was chairman, possibly this Debate would not be taking place. I observe with interest that the Debate is to be replied to, not by the Home Secretary, who customarily deals with shop matters, but by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport.
The situation with regard to passenger road transport was and is bad. At the time we conducted our investigation, it was, I think, even worse than it is now, and one of the recommendations we made in order to avoid three lots of people trying to get home at the same time—factory workers, shop assistants and customers—was that something should be done about the hours of closing shops during the winter. This has nothing to do with trade union principles or any of those things; it is entirely a matter of transport, so far as I am concerned. Our recommendation was made in the light of the appalling transport situation. We all know, if we leave this House after dark, how difficult it is to get home, and some kind of effort to stagger the traffic, to a certain extent, was necessary. I have not looked at the Report, and it is now over two years ago since it was made, but it contained a number of recommenda-


tions, one of which was that during the winter months, so long as traffic facilities were bad, some steps should be taken, the effect of which would be to make to go home earlier than other workers the people who worked in shops and their customers.

5.35 p.m.

The parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I am much obliged for the observations made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) in opening this discussion. Nevertheless, I must explain that owing to circumstances over which I have no control, and perhaps he had not either, I first heard at five minutes to four that this matter was to be raised on the Adjournment. The House will understand that that left me in a rather embarrassing position. I am not blaming my hon. and gallant Friend—

Captain Cunningham-Reid: That is not quite accurate. I told the hon. Gentleman's secretary at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Unfortunately, owing to circumstances over which neither she nor I had any control, I did not hear about it until five minutes to four. My position is rather more embarrassing than the House can know because, at 12.30, another hon. Member asked if I would let him raise another matter on the Adjournment to-day, and I had to reply that, unfortunately, it was impossible for me to give him a proper answer and therefore I hoped that he would desist, which he agreed to do. I hope, therefore, that my other hon. Friend will not feel that I owe him an apology when he reads his HANSARD to-morrow. In any case, I think the hon. and gallant Member who raised this matter would not have a grievance if I said that I would note what he says, but could not make a substantive reply at such short notice. However, in view of the fact that there is great interest in this matter in the House, and because it is of great importance to my Minister and to the London Passenger Transport Board, I will do my best to make a substantive reply to the arguments that have been put forward.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris) asked: Why change the conditions when the traffic is

going on quite well? Why take special measures to get people to go home before black-out, when otherwise they would not do it? The answer is very simple. We are not changing anything in comparison with what we have done for the last four years. This is the last of four years in which we have been obliged to make this arrangement. There is a change which I will explain in a moment, but the principle is the same. In the second place, we do not make people go earlier and move the peak forward. The peak of traffic moves itself forward, because, during the winter months, people who stay in their offices later in summer leave much earlier, and our winter peak, whether we like it or not, owing to the habits of the population of London, which we cannot control, is from 4.30 to 6 o'clock. It is a fact we have to accept. An hon. Member asked: If you have it at 4, why not all the year round? The answer is that the main peak of traffic moves itself to an earlier hour.
My hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the conference held by the Home Secretary in October. He complained that his four chambers of commerce had not been invited. I do not quite know how that happened but, in any case, it was not the responsibility of my Noble Friend, and I am sure the Home Secretary would have been very glad to have seen them then if he had been aware that they wanted to be received. However, I understand that he has seen them since.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Not yet.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I understood there was a meeting this morning.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: No, he would not see them.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I see. In any case there was a meeting last October with all the main shopkeeper associations throughout the country. At that meeting the shopkeepers asked for a later hour. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) said, the shop assistants asked that the present hours should be maintained because they thought it was right. At that meeting, in deference to the wishes of the shopkeepers, the Home Secretary, after consulting with my Noble Friend, made an important concession from the practice of previous years. Up to now we have had 12 to 13


weeks—in November, December and January. This year we have only eight weeks. It was a concession to this demand made, because this was the fifth year of the war. Everybody, I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who took the chair at that conference, went away quite happy. The four chambers of commerce put this forward, primarily on the ground of convenience to the general public. They asked that the hour should be five instead of four. Perhaps it would serve the interests of shopkeepers to have another hour—I am not so sure—but I do not think it would help the general public very much, and certainly it would not help war workers because they are still in their factories at 5 o'clock. They could not possibly get there in time.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: That is the whole point. How are war workers, or any workers for that matter, if they work until 5 or 6 o'clock, and live in the central London area, to do their shopping, when shops close at 4 o'clock?

Mr. Noel-Baker: They certainly cannot do it if the shops dose at 5, and 5 o'clock is really impossible because it comes at the height of our traffic peak. What, after the Home Secretary's concession made in October, is the present position? For these eight weeks shops will be closing at 4 o'clock. But any shop that sells food for human consumption, or any restaurant, is exempt from that regulation. They can keep open until 6 o'clock, or later if they are restaurants. All shops with no more than two assistants are also exempt on the ground that their trade does not add much to the existing traffic. From 13th January until 3rd March, under another regulation, with the details of which I will not weary the House, the closing hour is to be 6 o'clock. After that there is no war-time restriction; the ordinary peace-time regulations apply. In spite of that many shops voluntarily close at 5 o'clock, or earlier, all through the year because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster said, they can easily sell their goods before that hour, and they see no reason why they should keep open longer.
I am grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), who spoke

with authority, and said that this closing of shops is part of our general policy of staggering traffic. We have staggered factory workers all around London all through the year. They do not like it; it means that they have to get up half an hour earlier in winter and travel in darkness. It imposes inconveniences on them and, some say, hardship. But unless we had done that we could not have handled our traffic throughout the war. This staggering of shop hours is a small contribution toward the general policy to which factory workers themselves are making a great contribution all the year round. It is a contribution to which, however much we may regret it, we must stick. It is sometimes asked why we do not apply the same policy to theatre traffic at a later hour. People say, "Why do you not do something about that?" But theatre and cinema traffic is, by the different times of closing, already partially staggered, and apart from that it does not come at the same time as the war workers' peak of traffic.
Lastly, I have heard it said, "In the fifth year of the war this is a small relaxation and surely it could be allowed." Well, everybody wants relaxation; everybody is weary. But alas, transport is still in the war. Our transport machine is geared to the urgent necessities of war. If we adopt the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposal we should have to have more buses at the peak hour, and we cannot do it. We cannot carry shoppers and shop assistants in addition to the ordinary peak traffic for two reasons—first, we have not the vehicles, and second if we had, we have not the workers to run them.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: What we cannot understand is why peak traffic should be any different to-day from what it will be next Monday, when the regulation comes into force, and the times are changed.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Well, a date has to be chosen, and if we had had our way we would, on transport grounds, have changed the date a fortnight ago. We have found, broadly speaking, that in the winter months the peak of traffic is earlier than in the summer months. We cannot control it, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have to accept it, just as we do, and as the workers on the buses


have to accept it. We have not enough workers even to keep our normal scheduled services running as they should. Let my hon. Friends reflect that we are trying to improve our services and do it when we have the maximum sickness among our workers. If we have a bad winter this time we shall fall down badly on our scheduled services.

Mr. E. Walkden: Will my hon. Friend make it quite clear that this order does not apply in any circumstances to the small shopkeeper who employs not more than two persons, and that he can keep open the additional hours which are permitted by the law?

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: Could the Parliamentary Secretary consider some relaxation during the week preceding Christmas?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am glad to repeat my assurance that this Regulation does not apply to the small shopkeeper with only two assistants and does not apply to food shops, so that workers will, therefore, have a chance to get to these classes of shops. I cannot hold out any hope that there will be relaxation during the week before Christmas. I think that not even shopkeepers want that because they think that such a change would only result in chaos during a difficult time.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I say how pleased I was to hear what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary had to tell the House? This is a very old question which we have heard debated for the last 20 years. There are two points I want to put to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid). The problem of keeping shops open has always turned around the position that one set of shopkeepers has always been penalised by competition. I do not think that is the case here, because people who go to Barkers, Selfridges, and Swan and Edgars are, generally speaking, of a different type from those who go to small food shops.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Does the hon. Member realise that in my constituency, along the Edgware Road next Monday, shops on one side will close at 4 o'clock

while on the other side their competitors will be allowed to stay open?

Mr. Davies: We had exactly the same argument when we talked about public houses. On one side of Oxford Street they were closed an hour earlier than on the other. If I had my way they would all close at an earlier hour. I am sure that Members of all parties are very alarmed at the accidents on the roads, and I should have thought every Member would bear that point in mind when we are talking about traffic. It is terrible to think of the numbers killed when, in fact, the traffic, I understand, is less than it was. No one as yet has been able to collect the voices of the customers who are involved here. The shopkeepers and the shop assistants have spoken, but in all my experience I have yet to find any organisation of any kind among the customers who have ever said at any time that the shops anywhere are closing too early.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Because the customers are not organised.

Mr. Davies: Exactly. If they felt as deeply as hon. Members think, they would have organised.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Many have complained to me individually.

Wing-Commander Grant Ferris: On the point about accidents, does the hon. Gentleman realise that the area in question has the best record for accidents in the whole country?

Mr. Davies: Yes, simply because of these closing arrangements. If the shops were opened until six or seven, the accidents would probably double, and the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. But let us all understand one thing. These are just in the transition stage. I hope that some day we shall get back to the ordinary course adopted under the Shops Act, and even then there would still be complaints of some shopkeepers competing unduly with the rest, but on the whole I agree with what has been said by the Government on the subject.

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes before Six o'Clock.